EPTUK Parliament Elections 2010 - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
Reach_UK
United Kingdom68 Posts
| ||
|
noddyz
United Kingdom462 Posts
I have no idea why labour and the libs kept bringing up inheritance tax though, they must know it's massivly unpopular. Personally i agree with them on it but it seems a bit of a strange strat. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
I knew inheritance tax was gonna get smashed again, why the Conservative don't just drop it I don't know. However, Clegg and Brown were telling bare faced lies and were able to get away with it! Clegg said "inheritance tax cuts for double millionaires"and "it doesn't help the 3,000 best off" said Brown.; that's simply not true. They want to raise the cap from 300,000 to 999,000. So double millionaires would still pay it and the "best off" would still pay too, only the people in the middle save. Also Clegg straight up lied about his immigration amnesty. When Cameron asked him he tried to deny it, then sort of back-peddled. It seemed like Cameron had a vendetta against Clegg. Cameron's plan is to somehow knock Clegg off his stride and ignore Brown at the same time. But then Brown had a vendetta against Cameron. I think his plan now is to drag the Conservatives down so he possible stay as PM in a hung parliament. Clegg tried to distance himself from the other, but because he was under so much flack from Cameron it didn't really work. It was just game playing and they all looked pretty silly. Oh and the Liberal immigration amnesty just got owned by Dimbleby on question time. Vince read the list of requirements one of which is "must have been here for 10 years"; the point raised was if they snuck in illegally how do you know how long they've been here for! My further point would be, why do we assume immigrats are stupid? The only immigrants who will accept the amnesty will be the ones that gain from it. I.e. the ones that will immediately start claiming benefits. Bah I'm pretty annoyed now actually. For me voting is about choosing the best option, even if the choice is poor. They are all pretty awful but I think a Conservative majority would probably be the least bad; so I guess I have to vote for them. | ||
|
noddyz
United Kingdom462 Posts
On April 30 2010 07:51 Klive5ive wrote: Oh and the Liberal immigration amnesty just got owned by Dimbleby on question time. Vince read the list of requirements one of which is "must have been here for 10 years"; the point raised was if they snuck in illegally how do you know how long they've been here for! My further point would be, why do we assume immigrats are stupid? The only immigrants who will accept the amnesty will be the ones that gain from it. I.e. the ones that will immediately start claiming benefits. You honestly think that the only thing to be gained from British citizenship is benefits? The minimum wage, the safety that legal employment employment affords (remember morecambe bay?), not having to hide in fear of being deported or even just the pride that comes as being recognized as a citizen are all available with amnesty. I think you'd hard pushed to find a illegal immigrant who benefits from not being a citizen of this country and i'd imagine the vast majority of those eligible for amnesty will take it. I say more power to them, if you've lived and worked in this country and want to stay and contribute then as the Libs say, better for both you and the UK if you come out of the shadows. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On April 30 2010 08:17 noddyz wrote: You honestly think that the only thing to be gained from British citizenship is benefits? The minimum wage, the safety that legal employment employment affords (remember morecambe bay?), not having to hide in fear of being deported or even just the pride that comes as being recognized as a citizen are all available with amnesty. I think you'd hard pushed to find a illegal immigrant who benefits from not being a citizen of this country and i'd imagine the vast majority of those eligible for amnesty will take it. I say more power to them, if you've lived and worked in this country and want to stay and contribute then as the Libs say, better for both you and the UK if you come out of the shadows. You've living in a fantasy land. What's Clegg's catch phrase? "Criminal Gangs", they're all in "Criminal Gangs" he bangs on. The people who wont accept amnesty are the exact minority Clegg keeps talking about. And of course I know there is far more to be gained from being British than benefits; all those things you mentioned plus council housing and more. But very few of those things will be to the gain of the people who work honestly in this country. If you break the law, you don't deserve to gain from the hard work of other. This is such a naive policy. | ||
|
wanderer
United States641 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/DailyPolling-290410.jpg) | ||
|
noddyz
United Kingdom462 Posts
I also don't understand how you think making illegal immigrants citizens would somehow be a cost to British people. Their here anyway, taking jobs at low wages and working in the worst conditions in Britain. If you bring them out and make them taxpayers then they pay for the services they now have access to. Clearly their more willing to work than most British people if they've travelled the world to work for less than anyone else would accept. You also get the bonus of being able to find out who has smuggled them into the country and who has employed them illegally, both of which are far greater crimes than wanting a decent life. Final point is this: it's naive to think you can deport anything more than a fraction of illegal immigrants. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
Kerotan
England2111 Posts
An important video for anyone talking about UKIP as a party, and it also has some pretty scathing criticism of pat condell. In essence, UKIP deny global warming and fund NHS homoeopathy don't like the gay and the blacks. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On April 30 2010 09:00 sc4k wrote: Agree with the ppl supporting the immigration amnesty. To be honest I don't care who's here as long as they pay taxes. Tighten the borders sure but whoever is in right now, best to get em out of the woodwork...hopefully there are more workers than old ppl (illegally smuggling yourself in must be quite hard) and therefore more fit ppl who work...therefore a net gain for our hospitals and public services. It won't be a net gain, it will be more drain on the system. 2.5 million unemployed already, we simply can't afford to prop more people up. It didn't work in Spain or America and they don't have anywhere near the level of benefits we have in this country. On April 30 2010 09:18 Adeeler wrote: Hmm, Liberals still the only ones talking common sense, just hope they get enough seats to cause some 'fairness' to creep back into this government. I don't see how people buy this. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have some things that could be considered daft and a lot of sensible stuff; but really they are quite similar. How can only the Liberals be talking common sense when the agree on so many things with the Conservatives? DNA database, police on the beat, elected health boards and police, keep the post office, house insulation projects, keep tax credits, restore pension link, change/scrap retirement age, cut regulation in business, get the banks lending, re-regulate the banks, sort out the public finances, incentivise rail travel, protect frontline NHS, sack your MP, restore liberties, crack down on knife crime. Let's talk about some of the things that the Liberals stand out on. Scrap tuition fees in 6 years time: They won't give other figures after the next parliament so why this one? Because it's easy vote grabbing. No to like-for-like Trident replacement: Even though Trident IS the best alternative. They pretend like they want to scrap it, but say they will just change it when there is no alternative. No to Nuclear power: I had placements in the power industry, it's Nuclear power or lights off; there is no alternative. Investing in untested renewables would be unwise, we need time for technologies to be refined. As for fairness, as we discussed before the system isn't fair but it does work well. It's not a coincidence that PR and voting at 16 greatly benefits the Liberals and they are arguing for that. Right now I think a hung parliament is probably something we don't want. I just can't imagine the parties working together, they refuse to recognise when they agree; quite the opposite they reinforce differences. If Clegg didn't play the "I'm so different" game I would probably vote for him, but the truth is he is trying to be just as misleading as the other two. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On April 30 2010 16:18 Klive5ive wrote: It won't be a net gain, it will be more drain on the system. 2.5 million unemployed already, we simply can't afford to prop more people up. It didn't work in Spain or America and they don't have anywhere near the level of benefits we have in this country. I believe the reason it has been considered a failure in Spain is that it encouraged more illegal immigration. I'm not sure of the economic figures but I doubt that our system would be drained much...I mean illegal immigrants can probably use the NHS anyway...but this way they would be paying taxes. I think the argument is whether it would encourage illegal immigration. | ||
KwarK
United States43866 Posts
On April 30 2010 02:09 sc4k wrote: This argument will never work for me. It is fluffy and abstract. No one needs or deserves more than an inheritance of something like £100k. Everything else should be taxed, not cripplingly but pretty hard. Especially over 1m. Any ridiculous arguments about transcending morality and breaking the boundaries between life and death just pale in comparison to providing healthcare and policing for all. Couldn't care less about the choices of the rich ppl who want to give lil Johnny boy £10m. Seriously, couldn't give one shit. Johnny boy's not in any trouble. You realise right now people who own their own homes but don't have a load of cash can't pass them on because house prices are so high. When you inherit the house the gov values it and gives you a cash bill, despite the fact what you got was an illiquid asset. The result being that the family home you grew up in has to be mortgaged or sold. It's even worse in desirable country locations such as villages in the commuter belt where the established population couldn't afford to buy their own houses at the new prices. They're forced out of their own family homes by rising prices. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On April 30 2010 16:58 sc4k wrote: I believe the reason it has been considered a failure in Spain is that it encouraged more illegal immigration. I'm not sure of the economic figures but I doubt that our system would be drained much...I mean illegal immigrants can probably use the NHS anyway...but this way they would be paying taxes. I think the argument is whether it would encourage illegal immigration. Well you're absolutely right, that is the main argument. As to the figures, of course there are no figures. We simply don't know how many so it's all speculation. The Lib Dems says it's about 600,000 but I don't know where they got that from. I think there are 3 issues here: 1) Is it right that someone who has come here illegally be given citizenship? I think morally no. 2) Will it help the illegal immigration problem? Examples from other countries suggest no. 3) Will the country gain from the ones who are here being legal? Hmm, I'm not sure. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12027 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On April 30 2010 04:24 sc4k wrote: Yeah of course, there's no silver bullet but moltkewarding is making a moral case not a practical case. Concerning cheating the estate tax, in the UK the value of the taxed estate is retrospectively calculated, and any "gifts" given before death will not be exempt from taxation. About sc4k's criticism: isn't it interesting that issues which concern humanity directly are now more "abstract" than the concrete exercises of predicting the real effects of deficit spending, musing on the meaning of British sovereignty, or a man's right to citizenship. Mass democracy is the catalyst of mental abstraction; it's only when politics are decided on a local level that one can focus on concrete issues without number-dropping and model-building. Since none of that is very effective in a general election, the primordial appeal to the voters remains the abstract moral argument. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Did the debate change anyone's choice? What do you think is the best outcome now? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43866 Posts
That said I don't live in a swing seat so my vote was utterly meaningless. | ||
| ||
