So UKIP have got an MP...

anonymousblackfg

orraloon wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Farrage has had a job in the real world,

Commodities trader in City of London for Drexel Burnham Lambert, etc . That would qualify him as being in touch with the common man then...? Real job in the real world? Or an ex public school educated, self important and self aggrandising oaf? Let me think which might be closer...

In my book that's a far bigger step into the real word than a Conservative/Labour party researcher.

Pross

Loved the voter in Clacton that said he voted UKIP because the previous Tory incumbent had done nothing for them for years. Unfortunately the state of the country may well reflect the intellect of the voting public as ultimately politicians will adapt their policies to suit what they think the majority of voters want (that's why there's so little difference between the main parties).

mamba80

what I don't understand with ukip is that they are a more extreme version of the Tories and we can see with their policies that they ll never do anything for the sort of guy from Clacton, so god alone knows what he thinks ukip will do!
9% pay rise for MPs no pay rise for nhs workers, a bedroom tax but not a mansion tax, increases in the upper tax threshold but working benefits freeze, increases in Pension for ALL despite the fact that many many pensioners are loaded esp those who in the public sector who retired on final salary and now inheritance tax threshold increases, a tax that only effect 1 in 20, mainly in the SE and amongst typical tory voters - what ever happened to "one nation conservatism?"

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

what I don't understand with ukip is that they are a more extreme version of the Tories and we can see with their policies that they ll never do anything for the sort of guy from Clacton, so god alone knows what he thinks ukip will do!

So who do you think will do something for 'Clacton man' and why?

mamba80 wrote:

9% pay rise for MPs no pay rise for nhs workers, a bedroom tax but not a mansion tax, increases in the upper tax threshold but working benefits freeze, increases in Pension for ALL despite the fact that many many pensioners are loaded esp those who in the public sector who retired on final salary and now inheritance tax threshold increases, a tax that only effect 1 in 20, mainly in the SE and amongst typical tory voters - what ever happened to "one nation conservatism?"

- Increase in the 40% threshold: because people who pay 40% tax are not rich by any stretch of the imagination - and catches people like teachers, police officers etc.
- You conveniently omitted the rise in the personal allowance to £12,500 which takes anyone below that out of income tax altogether. Helps the large majority of people in work.
- Working benefits freeze? Easier to raise the personal threshold (see above) and take less tax off people in the first place, rather than take tax off people then give it back to them in working benefits.
- Inheritance tax? 1. The income used to build up something that you want to pass to your kids has already been taxed once - how is it fair to tax it again? 2. Taxed for dying? Doesn't sound fair to me. Should be scrapped.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

what I don't understand with ukip is that they are a more extreme version of the Tories and we can see with their policies that they ll never do anything for the sort of guy from Clacton, so god alone knows what he thinks ukip will do!
9% pay rise for MPs no pay rise for nhs workers, a bedroom tax but not a mansion tax, increases in the upper tax threshold but working benefits freeze, increases in Pension for ALL despite the fact that many many pensioners are loaded esp those who in the public sector who retired on final salary and now inheritance tax threshold increases, a tax that only effect 1 in 20, mainly in the SE and amongst typical tory voters - what ever happened to "one nation conservatism?"

For the love of God, IT ISN'T A TAX

Pross

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

what I don't understand with ukip is that they are a more extreme version of the Tories and we can see with their policies that they ll never do anything for the sort of guy from Clacton, so god alone knows what he thinks ukip will do!
9% pay rise for MPs no pay rise for nhs workers, a bedroom tax but not a mansion tax, increases in the upper tax threshold but working benefits freeze, increases in Pension for ALL despite the fact that many many pensioners are loaded esp those who in the public sector who retired on final salary and now inheritance tax threshold increases, a tax that only effect 1 in 20, mainly in the SE and amongst typical tory voters - what ever happened to "one nation conservatism?"

For the love of God, IT ISN'T A TAX

And the 9% pay rise for MPs was recommended by the independant body parliament was pushed into appointing by people who (understandably) criticised them deciding their own pay rises. Virtually every MP I've heard of any colour has had enough common sense to say they disagree with it and I believe many were saying they would turn it down.

pblakeney

Pross wrote:

And the 9% pay rise for MPs was recommended by the independant body parliament was pushed into appointing by people who (understandably) criticised them deciding their own pay rises. Virtually every MP I've heard of any colour has had enough common sense to say they disagree with it and I believe many were saying they would turn it down.

Is that the same independent body that recommended NHS workers get an increase, which the MPs are now denying them?

Hypocrisy is understating it.

Pross

Did the MPs vote to accept their rise in the end (or have that option)? I can't recall but ultimately they are politicians so of course they are hypocrites. Hypocrisy and being self-serving are the two common traits that link the majority of MPs of all parties (and politicians at all levels of government).

pblakeney

As far as i can find, there is no official statement. Which translates to - We want the raise but do not want to be seen to want the raise.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post.

symo

Rick Chasey wrote:

He wasn't a trader.

He was a broker. Big difference.

Not to be funny that only matters to those in the city, I and the vast majority of the country see no difference (please don't give me a lesson either, neither manufactures anything). He is not in touch with the real world at all.

pblakeney

symo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He wasn't a trader.

He was a broker. Big difference.

Not to be funny that only matters to those in the city, I and the vast majority of the country see no difference (please don't give me a lesson either, neither manufactures anything). He is not in touch with the real world at all.

They are just bookies in suits.

Anonymous

Depends. Some speculate some need commodities and hedges

rick_chasey

symo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He wasn't a trader.

He was a broker. Big difference.

Not to be funny that only matters to those in the city, I and the vast majority of the country see no difference (please don't give me a lesson either, neither manufactures anything). He is not in touch with the real world at all.

Can't complain about FS pulling the wool over your eyes & ruining things if you don't want to know .

A million people work in FS in the UK!

Brokers come with a certain reputation which in my professional experience is often (though not always) justified....

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

[So who do you think will do something for 'Clacton man' and why?

- Increase in the 40% threshold: because people who pay 40% tax are not rich by any stretch of the imagination - and catches people like teachers, police officers etc.
- You conveniently omitted the rise in the personal allowance to £12,500 which takes anyone below that out of income tax altogether. Helps the large majority of people in work.
- Working benefits freeze? Easier to raise the personal threshold (see above) and take less tax off people in the first place, rather than take tax off people then give it back to them in working benefits.
- Inheritance tax? 1. The income used to build up something that you want to pass to your kids has already been taxed once - how is it fair to tax it again? 2. Taxed for dying? Doesn't sound fair to me. Should be scrapped.

I didn't suggest anyone should do anything for Clacton man, just that if he thinks ukip will help him, he ll be sadly disappointed.

We are supposed to be "all in it together" but these policies are aimed at one portion of the electorate - the wealthy - you forgot to mention that the rise in personal allowance is a gain for every tax payer regardless of earnings - should be earnings related, why should the nurse on 30k pay tax to give someone on 150k a tax break?

The 40% tax threshold should be increased but to take it to 50% within a parliament whilst cutting services like adult social care, library services, education etc is wrong - but like many of our leaders, they are far removed from public services.
Many things are taxed twice, savings for example - inheritance tax is a: not a tax on dying and b: already at a fairly high threshold - £325k - substantially higher than it was 10years ago - if someone in 1962 bought a house in Forest hill for £1500 and now aged 84 dies and leaves their only son a £1m plus house, why should nt he pay tax on it? for him, its unearned income - I agree that a 55% rate is too high but again taking the rate to £1m shouldn't be a priority.
We can all see where money could be used for the betterment of us all, Cameron is just pandering to people who will vote Tory, and certainly in the case of the pensioners, leaving everyone else to pay for it.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

if someone in 1962 bought a house in Forest hill for £1500 and now aged 84 dies and leaves their only son a £1m plus house, why should nt he pay tax on it? for him, its unearned income.

Which could be a fair point if,
a) You are only interested in money. It is only unearned income once the house is sold.
b) If the son want to sell the house.

A common scenario is that the son is in the family home.
To continue to stay in the family home, the son has to pay the inheritance tax. What if he cannot afford the tax bill?
He is forced to sell the house and kicked out of the family home.
He may end up financially better off but very unhappy.
Is this fair?
The Government could collect the tax when the house is sold but to force people who may have an average job and average savings to pay a tax bill of £375,000 (in your example) up front seems unfair to me.

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

[So who do you think will do something for 'Clacton man' and why?

- Increase in the 40% threshold: because people who pay 40% tax are not rich by any stretch of the imagination - and catches people like teachers, police officers etc.
- You conveniently omitted the rise in the personal allowance to £12,500 which takes anyone below that out of income tax altogether. Helps the large majority of people in work.
- Working benefits freeze? Easier to raise the personal threshold (see above) and take less tax off people in the first place, rather than take tax off people then give it back to them in working benefits.
- Inheritance tax? 1. The income used to build up something that you want to pass to your kids has already been taxed once - how is it fair to tax it again? 2. Taxed for dying? Doesn't sound fair to me. Should be scrapped.

I didn't suggest anyone should do anything for Clacton man, just that if he thinks ukip will help him, he ll be sadly disappointed.

I think Clacton man will be equally disappointed of his lot if he voted for the traditional 3 main parties. Lets face facts, the cabinet and shadow cabinet are not and never have been and never will be your average Joe. They are career politicians who take research and support positions for their party when fresh out of university, then parachuted into a safe seat. After they have served their time they either sit on the board of corporations or are part of national/international organisations ie; NATO, WHO etc etc. Our current MPs with only a very few exceptions have nothing in common with the general public. Even Johnny 2 Jags went back on his word and accepted a life peerage.

symo

Mr Goo wrote:

I think Clacton man will be equally disappointed of his lot if he voted for the traditional 3 main parties. Lets face facts, the cabinet and shadow cabinet are not and never have been and never will be your average Joe. They are career politicians who take research and support positions for their party when fresh out of university, then parachuted into a safe seat. After they have served their time they either sit on the board of corporations or are part of national/international organisations ie; NATO, WHO etc etc. Our current MPs with only a very few exceptions have nothing in common with the general public. Even Johnny 2 Jags went back on his word and accepted a life peerage.

I agree no long term plans for any partys, no change to the establishments advantages, no clear pointers toward a meritocracy at all.

RideOnTime

coriordan wrote:

Depends. Some speculate some need commodities and hedges

Copper beech hedges look nice.

symo

What really worries me is that none of these people have any science or engineering background. As has been stated they do some old boy network job in the city and then do some unpaid internship (paid by their parents) in their party then moving to standing for a position in parliment.

Give me a politician who has worked in an Amazon picking centre, or a factory or call centre who has real world experience. Then they can speak for the common person.

They say they listen yet the High and Ultra High net worth individuals get the tax breaks, the corporations who can afford to lobby/buy dinner get more tax breaks yet it is those earning less than a 150k a year who are paying the tax and not getting the value for money.

If a million people are employed in financial services industry, then remove their admin staff, remove their IT staff, remove their cleaners and tell me what is left. There is no trickle down effect at least any that an economist can prove (and forgive me why do economists have politicians ears, it is pseudo science that has yet to predict any economic movement?).

Sorry but there is a need for real political change, however it is not from ex public school boys that will provide it; they have consistently failed to do so for decades. My loss of faith in the conservative party (ironically set up to support the working mans views against the whigs) means I effectively have no-one to vote for.

Perhaps I will vote Green come ballot day; but I certainly cannot vote UKIP.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So who do you think will do something for 'Clacton man' and why?

- Increase in the 40% threshold: because people who pay 40% tax are not rich by any stretch of the imagination - and catches people like teachers, police officers etc.
- You conveniently omitted the rise in the personal allowance to £12,500 which takes anyone below that out of income tax altogether. Helps the large majority of people in work.
- Working benefits freeze? Easier to raise the personal threshold (see above) and take less tax off people in the first place, rather than take tax off people then give it back to them in working benefits.
- Inheritance tax? 1. The income used to build up something that you want to pass to your kids has already been taxed once - how is it fair to tax it again? 2. Taxed for dying? Doesn't sound fair to me. Should be scrapped.

mamba80 wrote:

I didn't suggest anyone should do anything for Clacton man, just that if he thinks ukip will help him, he ll be sadly disappointed.

We are supposed to be "all in it together" but these policies are aimed at one portion of the electorate - the wealthy - you forgot to mention that the rise in personal allowance is a gain for every tax payer regardless of earnings - should be earnings related, why should the nurse on 30k pay tax to give someone on 150k a tax break?

1. If every taxpayer benefits from the raise in the personal alowance, a nurse is not paying for a tax break for a 'wealthy' person - they all get the tax break.
2. Why shouldn't they high earners get tax breaks when they contribute the most tax? The top 1% of individual taxpayers pay 30% of all income tax. I posted the link a while back, can dig it out again if you want. That's enough.

mamba80 wrote:

The 40% tax threshold should be increased but to take it to 50% within a parliament whilst cutting services like adult social care, library services, education etc is wrong - but like many of our leaders, they are far removed from public services..

Doesn't work - I've already posted the results of a HMRC survey showing that the introduction of the 50% rate had pretty much no benefit in terms of increased tax revenue - and possibly damaged the tax take by deterring investment. I can post the link again if you want. The introduction of the 50% rate was an act of political spite by the last outgoing Labour govt, having just nearly bankrupted the country. It served no useful purpose.

mamba80 wrote:

Many things are taxed twice, savings for example - inheritance tax is a: not a tax on dying and b: already at a fairly high threshold - £325k - substantially higher than it was 10years ago - if someone in 1962 bought a house in Forest hill for £1500 and now aged 84 dies and leaves their only son a £1m plus house, why should nt he pay tax on it? for him, its unearned income - I agree that a 55% rate is too high but again taking the rate to £1m shouldn't be a priority.

It is a tax on dying as it doesn't need to be paid unless somebody dies :roll: £325k is not high threshold for anyone who owns property in the SE. As has been explained above by PBlakeney, it is a flawed idea.

I'll add to that - your principal private residence is free of tax when you sell it when you're alive - why should it be taxed when you're dead? It's not as if you have a choice in dying. If you work hard and save hard you should have the right to pass that on to your dependents - not have to hand it to the State. Otherwise you'll just encourage people to p1ss their savings up the wall when they're old.

However. Glad you agree a 55% tax rate is too high, though why is 50% OK with you as you mentioned above?

mamba80 wrote:

We can all see where money could be used for the betterment of us all, Cameron is just pandering to people who will vote Tory, and certainly in the case of the pensioners, leaving everyone else to pay for it.

That's what Labour did when they nearly bankrupted the country, pandered to their voter base by chucking money at them and left all of us to pay. We're still paying for it now.

ballysmate

Why do so many people have it in for pensioners? Especially those people from the left of centre politics?

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Why do so many people have it in for pensioners? Especially those people from the left of centre politics?

They are usually young enough not to be considering their own retirement yet.

ballysmate

There is a story today about Cameron wanting to slash the welfare cap to £23k, which I assume will get the lefties frothing at the mouth.

Slash is the paper's word, not mine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ships.html

I'm sure many pensioners will give a wry smile.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Why do so many people have it in for pensioners? Especially those people from the left of centre politics?

I think you'll find that anything advantage that other people get and they don't is enough to get a knee jerk reaction. Look at tax generally, seen as a good thing by the left of centre lot - as long as it's someone else who is paying. The moment it's a tax that they have to pay (or in the case of the bedroom tax, think they have to pay as it's not actually a tax), then it's unfair

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Why do so many people have it in for pensioners? Especially those people from the left of centre politics?

I think you'll find that anything advantage that other people get and they don't is enough to get a knee jerk reaction. Look at tax generally, seen as a good thing by the left of centre lot - as long as it's someone else who is paying. The moment it's a tax that they have to pay (or in the case of the bedroom tax, think they have to pay as it's not actually a tax), then it's unfair

Well, I don't think like that, tax is necessary, without it we d fall apart as a society, time and time again we get people on other threads complaining about the state of roads, public services etc some of it is waste but its mainly because we are a low tax low wage economy and there just isn't the money to provide basic safe guards.
So you ve the sad state of affairs where the Police haven't the funds to pursue people who view child porn images...great! more children get abused to satisfy their vile tastes.

But Pensioners have got away without any reductions in their % increase of either pension or allowances.. is that fair when so many have taken adv (through no fault of their own) of early retirement and finally salary schemes that originate from the public sector ? leaving current tax payers to fund these.

in times of austerity means testing of benefits sometimes has to happen, its all v well giving with one hand but then leaving the elderly to fend for them selves once they become ill or infirm OR Stevo, having to sell their houses to pay for basic care? IHT is non issue compared to this scandal.

Having said all this, this morning I got a decent tax refund from my good friends at HMRC.. happy days! and yes I am keeping every cent!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Why do so many people have it in for pensioners? Especially those people from the left of centre politics?

I think you'll find that anything advantage that other people get and they don't is enough to get a knee jerk reaction. Look at tax generally, seen as a good thing by the left of centre lot - as long as it's someone else who is paying. The moment it's a tax that they have to pay (or in the case of the bedroom tax, think they have to pay as it's not actually a tax), then it's unfair

Well, I don't think like that, tax is necessary, without it we d fall apart as a society, time and time again we get people on other threads complaining about the state of roads, public services etc some of it is waste but its mainly because we are a low tax low wage economy and there just isn't the money to provide basic safe guards.
So you ve the sad state of affairs where the Police haven't the funds to pursue people who view child porn images...great! more children get abused to satisfy their vile tastes.

But Pensioners have got away without any reductions in their % increase of either pension or allowances.. is that fair when so many have taken adv (through no fault of their own) of early retirement and finally salary schemes that originate from the public sector ? leaving current tax payers to fund these.

in times of austerity means testing of benefits sometimes has to happen, its all v well giving with one hand but then leaving the elderly to fend for them selves once they become ill or infirm OR Stevo, having to sell their houses to pay for basic care? IHT is non issue compared to this scandal.

Having said all this, this morning I got a decent tax refund from my good friends at HMRC.. happy days! and yes I am keeping every cent!

Tax is necessary - to a certain extent. I don't question for a minute that police resources to deal with serious crime is anything but essential, but how much of the function of the State is essential?

However what has happened over the last few decades is the relentless expansion of the state into areas where they don't need to be. Just look at the sort of non-jobs that get advertised in the Guardian and tell me we really need them. And with those unnecessary function comes all the back up that goes with them - IT, HR, catering, facilities etc etc. Human nature dictates that once people are in those jobs, they try to justify their existence and expand their little empires - all at our cost.

The answer is not relentlessly higher taxes - it is the State learning to mind it's own ******* business, cut out the interference and non-essential stuff and let us get on with our lives.

Pensions - well it was the State that gave a lot of those out, the majority of these final salary pensions are in the public sector. Their fault. However not a lot we can do about the legacy there.

The care of the elderly is something that is quite close to home for me as my folks are getting close to needing that. There are ways to reduce what the council can take off the elderly to fund care, I'm happy to share if you're interested. However this also goes back to my earlier point about IHT - if people know that they are going to get hammered for care fees, it encourages them to blow their money as why give it to the council? It discourages people from saving and being prudent and encourages people to be financially reckless - the opposite of what we want these days. Maybe we need compulsory saving schemes for care in the same way that workplace pensions are now compulsory? (off the cuff idea - may well get shot down...)

PS: congratulations on the tax refund, good to see you've got a taste for it I'll be getting quite a good one myself next year. As above with the care point, happy to advise on how

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

But Pensioners have got away without any reductions in their % increase of either pension or allowances.. is that fair when so many have taken adv (through no fault of their own) of early retirement and finally salary schemes that originate from the public sector ? leaving current tax payers to fund these.

in times of austerity means testing of benefits sometimes has to happen, its all v well giving with one hand but then leaving the elderly to fend for them selves once they become ill or infirm OR Stevo, having to sell their houses to pay for basic care? IHT is non issue compared to this scandal.

That is one hell of a conflicted post! :?

rick_chasey

So Farage has just done a deal with the Polish 'new right' party, whose leader is unapologetically racist, misogynist, and a holocaust denier.

In July, he declared in English that the minimum wage should be “destroyed” and said that “four million niggers” lost their jobs in the US as a result of President John F Kennedy signing a bill on the minimum wage in 1961. He went on to claim that 20 million young Europeans were being treated as “negroes” as a result of the minimum wage. He refused to apologise and was fined 10 days of allowances for his comments.

Korwin-Mikke has also called for the vote to be taken away from women, has claimed that the difference between rape and consensual sex is “very subtle” and said that Adolf Hitler was “probably not aware that Jews were being exterminated”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-grouping


Not even Le Pen will work with them, so why is UKIP?

bdu98252

UKIP probably work with the Polish because they have similar views on Europe. Farage probably does not care about what this party stands for beyond this and what it may or may not do in Poland. This is entirely logical for a party that would rather have no ties with anyone including Poland. Probably a bit similar to the number of deals we do with foreign nations to make money. Some call it immoral others call it necessity as it is in the national interest.

symo

mamba80 wrote:

Having said all this, this morning I got a decent tax refund from my good friends at HMRC.. happy days! and yes I am keeping every cent!

I take it, that in order to get this, you didn't take one of the heads of HMRC for dinner to 'agree' how much tax you should pay, nor did you employ some lobbying group to schmooze politicians to change legislation for your benefit.

This is the difference.