Ed Miliband

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brexit said:
It isn't a stick to beat the poorer elements. It just sticks in throats that people can take the piss and have a similar life to those that graft etc.
Click to expand...
hmmm, the last three years has seen an 86% rise in the number of working people relying on housing benefit, and the cost of of private rented has increased by 37% in the last five years, and wages have risen how much?

greedminds said:
so the welfare bill/ system is all ticket boo is it ? of course the benefits bill should be reduced ffs
Click to expand...
which is exactly what i suggested that you thought was hilarious.
 


scraff said:
hmmm, the last three years has seen an 86% rise in the number of working people relying on housing benefit, and the cost of of private rented has increased by 37% in the last five years, and wages have risen how much?


which is exactly what i suggested that you thought was hilarious.
Click to expand...
I've got the wrong end of the stick there :lol: too busy fuming at barclays
 
scraff said:
Typical Tory rhetoric, private rented is actually a race to the bottom of housing standards.
How is reducing the benefits bill wrong?
If there was a huge social housing build program private rented would drop, it makes perfect sense.
I want the living standards and wages of the majority of people to rise by clawing back from the more affluent how is this a race to the bottom?
Click to expand...
I'm no Tory, I just don't agree with this easy cheap political unfair tax.
Let's face it, in the big picture it probably won't raise that much anyway. It's purely cheap politics
 
FootballFan said:
good new policies by Ed on immigration, Browne would never have done that
Click to expand...
As much as any of the parties (including UKIP if they had any influence) would have you believe, the big transcorps will kick off big time if too much control were to be put on immigration as it is a natural suppressor of wage rises.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
Isnt it remarkable that cutting benefits, freezing pay, slashing the public sector, measures that affect those at the bottom, is an accepted way of 'solving the problem yet increased taxes for those with the most is never the answer.

The question that should be asked is 'will increased taxes for those with the most capital or income substantially reduce the quality of life for those people?'. The answer to that question will be no in the vast majority of cases. As a result, they should be implemented and enforced. Much like austerity is for those at the bottom.



Unable to challenge any of the content of the post you replied to as it is correct?
Click to expand...

You're really missing the point. Taxes on those who've got more is part of the answer. You're proposing yet another blunt instrument that will have about as much effect as a flea on a dinosaur in respect of the very wealthy and will hit people who haven't got all that much.

You bring in a mansion tax and the Barclay Brothers, owner of the Telegraph and the Ritz, will pay fuck all because their actual mansion in London exercises a tax loophole enabling them to declare their property as part of the British Virgin Islands and exempt from all taxes. They didn't even pay stamp duty. We could try closing those loopholes but no government has the balls to piss off the owners of a national newspaper.

On the other hand, properties owned by people of modest means because they bought a house 40 years ago, in an area inflated by property developers, foreign investors and yuppies looking for a flat near work, will not be able to leave the property to their families. The inheritance tax and mansion tax will make it impossible to afford to inherit so the house will have to be sold. It will be bought by wealthy investors and property developers and the last remaining normal residents of the area get forced out to a shitty area that they still can't afford to buy in, paying inflated rents.

We need measures that are actually going to have a positive effect, enabling regular people to benefit from economic upturn and protecting them from the downside and manipulation. This is just another measure that sounds good, makes a good headline for the core support and then turns out to be worse than useless because no one ever follows through with the hard bits of their proposed changes.
 
scraff said:
As much as any of the parties (including UKIP if they had any influence) would have you believe, the big transcorps will kick off big time if too much control were to be put on immigration as it is a natural suppressor of wage rises.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that also has the knock on effect of raising our welfare bill.
Cockney Mackem said:
You're really missing the point. Taxes on those who've got more is part of the answer. You're proposing yet another blunt instrument that will have about as much effect as a flea on a dinosaur in respect of the very wealthy and will hit people who haven't got all that much.

You bring in a mansion tax and the Barclay Brothers, owner of the Telegraph and the Ritz, will pay fuck all because their actual mansion in London exercises a tax loophole enabling them to declare their property as part of the British Virgin Islands and exempt from all taxes. They didn't even pay stamp duty. We could try closing those loopholes but no government has the balls to piss off the owners of a national newspaper.

On the other hand, properties owned by people of modest means because they bought a house 40 years ago, in an area inflated by property developers, foreign investors and yuppies looking for a flat near work, will not be able to leave the property to their families. The inheritance tax and mansion tax will make it impossible to afford to inherit so the house will have to be sold. It will be bought by wealthy investors and property developers and the last remaining normal residents of the area get forced out to a shitty area that they still can't afford to buy in, paying inflated rents.

We need measures that are actually going to have a positive effect, enabling regular people to benefit from economic upturn and protecting them from the downside and manipulation. This is just another measure that sounds good, makes a good headline for the core support and then turns out to be worse than useless because no one ever follows through with the hard bits of their proposed changes.
Click to expand...
This
 
I Stand Alone said:
The point being made (admittedly badly) was that he is a pro-Israel former politician being protected by pro-Israel press while Milliband is being attacked by them, not long after coming out as pro-Palestine.
Click to expand...
Interesting as his Dad was Jewish
 
gastap said:
why?
Click to expand...
Housing benefit simply leads to house price inflation and passes tax payers money directly to private landlords.
It is wrong to incentivise people to have children in an overpopulated world. If you cant afford children dont have them. The taxpayer already contributes massively in providing free education and healthcare.
Again a tax payer subsidy to business.
This was the whole basis of the formation of the welfare state. If structured correctly it removes the need for at least the first two benefits. Have a payment as a percentage of your earnings in the last year - if you lose your job - obviously with a maximum ceiling. A sort of National Insurance scheme if you like. No contribution no payment.
 
foolzy said:
Interesting as his Dad was Jewish
Click to expand...
The issue is more to do with pro/anti Zionism rather than whether he's Jewish or not. There are plenty of Jews who speak out against the state of Israel's aggressive acquisition of Palestinian land.

Market Where? said:
Housing benefit simply leads to house price inflation and passes tax payers money directly to private landlords.
It is wrong to incentivise people to have children in an overpopulated world. If you cant afford children dont have them. The taxpayer already contributes massively in providing free education and healthcare.
Again a tax payer subsidy to business.
This was the whole basis of the formation of the welfare state. If structured correctly it removes the need for at least the first two benefits. Have a payment as a percentage of your earnings in the last year - if you lose your job - obviously with a maximum ceiling. A sort of National Insurance scheme if you like. No contribution no payment.
Click to expand...
The housing benefit bill would be a fraction of what it is now if Thatcher hadn't flogged off all of the council houses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top