Does Anyone Support David Cameron's 'Austerity'? | Page 3 | Vital Football

Does Anyone Support David Cameron's 'Austerity'?

Yes the reality is that there isn't a viable alternative and I am fed up with all these career politicians who have had no real experience of the "real world"

I mean Gideon Osborne trying to speak common yesterday just because he was addressing a group of Morrisons workers was just ridiculous.
 
the rich won't be better off at all. taking 2010-2015 as a whole, the lower paid will be paying less tax, the highest paid will be paying more.


 
This country will struggle for many years as we no longer produce anything worthwhile trading hence the reason why the pound is so weak.
 
SKEGGY - 3/4/2013 12:05

Austerity is only unacceptable if it directly effects you or yours!
Click to expand...

:1: Well said dude, how true that is :1:
 
And it's only acceptable if it does not effect you and yours.

I'll be voting labour for sure at the next election. Lesser of two evils.
 
Bikini Inspector - 3/4/2013 10:25

It's not a recession it's a robbery. It's all about the banks but the blame has been shifted onto welfare, the housing market or the plebs not living within their means. It is text book smoke and mirrors.

It's all about the criminal banksters. They are committing mass theft and fraud all across Europe and the spineless corrupt politicians use public money to bail them out.

They have completely controlled the context of the debate and got everybody talking about welfare and all the rest of it.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly dude,

What makes me chuckle is when i see the politicins like Ian Duncan Smith constantly highlighting to welfare system as being one of the major problems which is costing us too much

Well in reality the welfare system is one of the least best places to gain money from lol i watched a newsnight documentry on bbc2 showing there are far more lucrative places for the government to rake in money from but that would upset the bankers and rich hmmm :14:
 
OK Clive, a question for you, why should a person pay more in tax just because he earns more? Who decided they should fund those who earn less, and why is this seen as fair these days? Certianly a few decades ago it would not have been seen as fair, after all they don't get anything extra for their increased taxation.
 
Fulford - 3/4/2013 18:47

This country will struggle for many years as we no longer produce anything worthwhile trading hence the reason why the pound is so weak.
Click to expand...

The country will struggle for many years as long as we produce the
idiots that are in Parliament now. I watch them debating and they are like a bunch of school kids. And what worries me is these pictures are going out all over the world. Wankers the lot of them. Take your pick who ever you vote for, they are all there to feather their own nest.
 
I'm surprised that the vote is almost 50/50. I would have thought that it was much less popular.
 
Wurzel - 4/4/2013 07:26

OK Clive, a question for you, why should a person pay more in tax just because he earns more? Who decided they should fund those who earn less, and why is this seen as fair these days? Certianly a few decades ago it would not have been seen as fair, after all they don't get anything extra for their increased taxation.
Click to expand...

I'm not wishing to speak for Clive but progressive taxation has always been a part of the European social contract and almost all economists would argue in favour of it.

The desire is not to create equality of outcomes but equality of opportunity for the young. The only way to do that is to tax the rich to provide services to the poor.
 
Agreed, the higher tax rates aren't right. They pay more because they earn more, but the rates should be the same. Two tax bands fine, but 50% of what you earn going to the country? Or higher? Nope, it drives away the skills we need from the UK
 
eg... wow, France 75% supertax!

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/04/03/french-football-cries-foul-on-75-supertax/?ncid=webmail4
 
The Fear - 4/4/2013 18:43

Agreed, the higher tax rates aren't right. They pay more because they earn more, but the rates should be the same. Two tax bands fine, but 50% of what you earn going to the country? Or higher? Nope, it drives away the skills we need from the UK
Click to expand...

That one is another myth perpetuated by the 1%. If all UK earnings were taxed, it wouldn't matter where they lived. If you are doing business in the UK and making money in the UK, you should be paying tax in the UK.

If the politicians stopped pandering to the 1%, everyone would pay less tax (except the 1% who want to live off the 99% and contribute nothing).
 
BodyButter - 4/4/2013 09:17

Wurzel - 4/4/2013 07:26

OK Clive, a question for you, why should a person pay more in tax just because he earns more? Who decided they should fund those who earn less, and why is this seen as fair these days? Certianly a few decades ago it would not have been seen as fair, after all they don't get anything extra for their increased taxation.
Click to expand...

I'm not wishing to speak for Clive but progressive taxation has always been a part of the European social contract and almost all economists would argue in favour of it.

The desire is not to create equality of outcomes but equality of opportunity for the young. The only way to do that is to tax the rich to provide services to the poor.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting point though, and there are many economists who advocate a flat tax. When people call for taxing the better off they often don't think about the fairness of such a policy. Over taxing the super rich does nothing, it is the large middle income earners who shoulder the burden of a benefit culture, and that is far from fair.

The poll doesn't surprise me because many people understand that we are living beyond our means and that we cannot keep on spending on the welfare state as we do at the moment.those against either don't believe we are in financial trouble, or are effected by the cuts, or think just taxing better off people will solve things, it won't.

The thing is Labour would cut virtually the same, which is a clear indication that we are in trouble.
 
Not sure which bit if a myth. Part of it was just my opinion that 50% or over of your earnings being taxed isn't right especially when a good few of the top earners would, surely, cost less to 'keep' by the country (private medical, no dole etc)

 
I think it is definately the right thing to do to invest in sorting out the benefit cheats and make qualifying for claims more difficult, in turn with cutting back on handouts. Too many people just want to go through life on Britains gravy train and it's got to stop - it just isnt viable to operate like that.

i want a welfare state and am happy to play my part - but people should not be able to take the piss, and it is easy to control and get right, everytime.

I'd be all for having more people in poverty if that is the choice they want to make - give them the bare essentials - which is a bedsit, in a block, with food and clothing vouchers and an opportunity to be educated and to work for a low minimum wage. No cash, no holidays, no fags, no alcohol - you earn your right to those luxuries.

If people dont want to comply with that then they can sleep in the gutter or bugger off.
 
Yes Jim, but you have to do it from both ends, you then have an equal society and most of us in 'the middle' can see all is fair and being done right.

But yes, the guy who challenged Osbourne didn't realise the press might look at his background of drinking and gambling. Is the country there to fund that? I think not sir, I think not.
 
The welfare state was not intended to give people a decent standard of living. It is a safety net for those who need it while they are looking for work. Every claim by someone who can work but won't is taking money from those who deserve it such as the disabled and elderly.
 
Those who are richer than me, are educated to a higher level than me and enjoy a better lifestyle than me: I look upto, and to an extent I aspire to.

They pay a proportionate percentage of their earnings to help fund the country - that is fair enough. I do the same, and happy to do so.

That money should not be handed out to any individuals to do as they please. I dont give a monkeys about human rights or political correctness. If folk live off other peoples tax, they should see that they have an obligation not to mispend that money on frivolous items such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, ridiculous trainers, jewellery, baseball caps or a studded collar for their staffordshire bull terrier - but because people clearly cant be trusted, they shouldn't be given the cash. They can do that shite with their own money but not ours.

The taxpayers money should be spent on employment programmes, education centres, and vouchers to obtain food and essentials. It is so simple I dont get why it isnt the system in place.
 
Agreed Wurzel. I cried the day I went on them (brain doo dah) and cried tears of joy (in a pub in London which was embarrassing!) when I came off them. I could have sat on my arse the rest of my life and never worked had I chose to, I didn't.

********

I agree Jim, totally, I aspire etc etc. I am talking, as I thought you were, of the cheats. So if we clamp down (rightly) on those at the 'bottom' of society, you have to do it fairly and squarly throughout society including those at the top not paying their share of tax due to loopholes.

Even it all up, then you can truly say 'we are in this together' and most won't find much cause to complain (tough though austerity can be)

Not all caught in the poverty trap are heavy drinking, smoking scum bags either I would point out, you are doing the Daily Mail stereotype in your post.

Plenty of industries have closed, plenty of respect taken from whole communities, plenty want to work but don't have work to get.

But yes, be nice to get the chavs out working instead of being a pain in the arse to society, just not nice to lump all with the same brush when it comes to talking about these things.

Those as above should at least be told they are doing 2 days a week voluntary and at least 1 day a week spent, supervised, at a job centre where they are actively seen to be looking, applying for jobs OR made to re-train for their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.