The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Villaninireland]

14 hours ago, Xann said:

Mirror

They really are utter filth & to think Camoron stood on steps of No 10 & said they would look after people who were unable to work & their manifesto also said they would not take money from the disabled. I dread the letter coming through the door demanding I go for another medical. I was at the docs yesterday to be told I have 2 disintegrating discs to go with my arthritis in my spine & you can guarantee I will be told I am fit for work. Tory scum are making my anxiety &  depression 10 times worse. They pay me a pittance & take £80 a month in bedroom & council tax. They won't be happy until they have killed all the disabled & poor off.

[tonyh29]

26 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't mind as long as the money isn't being wasted.

If we can save £30 a week by not handing out free money to some benefits type then after a thousand weeks we'll have enough money for one bomb that we can drop on some Syrian toilet.

The alternative of getting people that earn over, say, £50,000 or £60,000 or £70,000 per annum to pay an extra penny, well that just sounds too difficult.

I'd like to know if the government brought in a Radiohead pay what you feel style tax how many of the people that say tax everyone on £50 k plus more would voluntary pay more tax than they currently do , they seem happy enough to tax everyone else after all . ( this is aimed generically at your comment not at you btw)

the 50k earner is already paying an extra "penny"  , I guess what you mean is an extra extra penny  ? but the recent figures  , which as always are open to interpretation , is that since the 50p tax rate was dropped tax receipts have increased , it seems the "super rich" were happy to pay 45p tax rate but at 50p it becomes emotive and they would rather pay an accountant to find creative ways to avoid paying it  , there is also some historical evidence in the US that also seems to support this idea ( I mention this because one argument in the raised receipts is that people had deferred payments)

 

I guess the bombs on Syria cost is subjective  , the bombs aren't necessarily measured in straight "this is how many junior doctors we could pay to go on strike instead " terms but in terms of  we are involved  whether we like it or not  i.e what impact would there be on Syria if it were to fall under IS control ? what is the cost of Syrian migrants to Europe v ending the conflict in their area and giving them all a home to go back to ? ( yeah I know it's not that simple as they will no doubt spend the next 30 years fighting internal squabbles over different branches of Islam )

 

[chrisp65]

The extra extra penny being too difficult was a nod to the government needing to prove a point that if we let the rich of paying tax then somehow we are better off. Perhaps if we invested in keener, smarter, incentivised tax gathering this wouldn't be so difficult. You know, like they do with reducing disability benefits.

I realise I'm freaky, I think I've already mentioned I'd be willing to pay more tax. Unless of course, it's purpose was to let the richer folks off some more of their contribution or if it just gets pissed away in another war we don't understand and don't actually intend winning in any meaningful way.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

...the bombs on Syria cost is subjective  , the bombs aren't necessarily measured in straight "this is how many junior doctors we could pay...

Yes. It's one of the unfortunate elements of these kinds of discussions, and long has been. Someone will pick something "good" (perhaps a school, or a hospital) as a unit of measurement, and then they will pick the object of discussion that they disapprove of (perhaps a trident, or a bomb, or HS2 or a nuclear plant, or a wind farm) and then say "you could build 10 [hospitals] with the money spent on the bad nasty [road]" or "that would pay the salaries for 10,000 extra nurses for 5 years".

It's a complete over simplification of an argument, really. The same goes for other types of arguments made "As a nation we simply can't afford to spend money on benefits/a new hospital/whatever - we have to live within our means".

There are all sorts of ways "we" could afford to pay for things, but the government chooses not to, because they think some of their voters/financiers would object, or even they choose not to, because they think biffing a particular group will be popular, or will make a party political advantage.

All governments are guilty of it, this one particularly so. In part because the lack of a proper opposition is giving them a free ride.

 

[chrisp65]

I thought the whole point of our annual personal tax pie chart was to get people to concentrate on what they wanted their tax spent on?

 

[tonyh29]

47 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I realise I'm freaky, I think I've already mentioned I'd be willing to pay more tax.

have you tried writing to HMRC and offering ?

 

but on the next point , I've mentioned it before but the airport tax on an economy ticket is peanuts in comparison to the airport tax on a business class ticket ... and yet the wealthy happily pay it as they feel they are getting something in return ... ( whatever the moral question about  tax shouldn't be about getting something ) which sorta ties in with you comment that you'd happily pay more tax if it went to the places you want it to go  ... I mentioned before I don't use buses , why should I then pay tax towards their usage ... I can't choose any more than you can't choose your tax money not to be used on bombing Syria ..... but arguably the pair of us , like your tax avoider , would happily pay it if it was fair and we perceived it to be going to the right palce  ... but of course tax doesn't work like that , hence I begrudge being taxed an extra extra penny

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

have you tried writing to HMRC and offering ?

 

I'm in the middle of a slightly one sided communication with them about when I'll get my expenses rebate, I wouldn't want them to take their eye off that ball right now.

 

Now there's a complex thing, happy to pay more tax, but asking for some money back for the miles he's done!

[tonyh29]

43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I'm in the middle of a slightly one sided communication with them about when I'll get my expenses rebate, I wouldn't want them to take their eye off that ball right now.

 

Now there's a complex thing, happy to pay more tax, but asking for some money back for the miles he's done!

tell me about it  ... they change my tax code almost on a weekly basis , usually in their favour and then our FD shows them why they are wrong and they change it in my favour and then a week later they change it again .. useless bastards I blame whoever it was that made thousands of them redundant  !!

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I mentioned before I don't use buses , why should I then pay tax towards their usage

That's an example of one of the weakest., lamest types of "arguments" there is.

I'm not poorly so why should I pay for the NHS. I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools, I'm not the victim of a crime so why should I pay for the police. I don't vote so why should I pay for MPs, we're not at war so why should I pay for the army, my cat's not stuck up a tree so why should I pay for Fire service....ad infinitum.

With buses, people using buses aren't all driving their cars on the roads you use - so they're not making congestion worse for you. With buses, if/when you can't drive, perhaps because of a knee operation or whatever, you might through changed circs need to use buses. Being less polluting than multiple cars, buses are less harmful to air quality, perhaps. And because buses provide cheap mobility to people who can't afford a car, or taxi fares. But sod them I'm alright is the gist of all these "why should I pay when I don't..." type arguments.

 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's an example of one of the weakest., lamest types of "arguments" there is.

I'm not poorly so why should I pay for the NHS. I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools, I'm not the victim of a crime so why should I pay for the police. I don't vote so why should I pay for MPs, we're not at war so why should I pay for the army, my cat's not stuck up a tree so why should I pay for Fire service....ad infinitum.

With buses, people using buses aren't all driving their cars on the roads you use - so they're not making congestion worse for you. With buses, if/when you can't drive, perhaps because of a knee operation or whatever, you might through changed circs need to use buses. Being less polluting than multiple cars, buses are less harmful to air quality, perhaps. And because buses provide cheap mobility to people who can't afford a car, or taxi fares. But sod them I'm alright is the gist of all these "why should I pay when I don't..." type arguments.

 

that's one example of the weakest lamest types of taking the whole context of what was written and deciding to ignore it to suit ones own agenda 

 

I could explain but you'll probably then ignore it and by piecing together every 17th letter of my text be able to come up with me saying I eat babies or something

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

that's one example of the weakest lamest types of taking the whole context of what was written and deciding to ignore it to suit ones own agenda 

I've got an agenda have I? what is it - please enlighten me ?

I read your post as implying you do or would begrudge paying [extra] tax because it gets spent on stuff you don't use/agree with - like buses. Is that a misreading?

I don't like some of the things tax gets spent on either, or don't use some of the things/services it gets spend on. I'm kind of OK with paying tax, but wouldn't want to pay more, particularly either. But not because of my views on whatever it gets spent on, just because I'm a tight-arse.

Gov'ts tend not to like hypothecated taxes, because they can be easily held to account - it's relatively straightforward to calculate that if there's (say) a road tax, whether all the money raised for roads gets spent on roads - and with that type of tax, there's more of a basis to "I don't use roads..." type arguments, but even so they're still pretty lame.

 

[Wainy316]

I wouldn't mind paying more tax if it went towards building a proper infrastructure of public services rather than me being at the mercy oligarchs and corporation shareholders.

I'd like to think it would save me money in the long run. 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I've got an agenda have I? what is it - please enlighten me ?

I read your post as implying you do or would begrudge paying [extra] tax because it gets spent on stuff you don't use/agree with - like buses. Is that a misreading?

I don't like some of the things tax gets spent on either, or don't use some of the things/services it gets spend on. I'm kind of OK with paying tax, but wouldn't want to pay more, particularly either. But not because of my views on whatever it gets spent on, just because I'm a tight-arse.

Gov'ts tend not to like hypothecated taxes, because they can be easily held to account - it's relatively straightforward to calculate that if there's (say) a road tax, whether all the money raised for roads gets spent on roads - and with that type of tax, there's more of a basis to "I don't use roads..." type arguments, but even so they're still pretty lame.

 

I didn't really mean agenda in that context so apologies if it was taken that way  .. I guess belief may have been the more appropriate word

the conversation was more generic that we all , apart from Chris  , begrudge paying tax and that we can't control where it is spent , he chose bombs as his example I just used buses it could easily have been hospitals or something else .. your reply just stripped down the conversation and took away it's context in what was being said ,added to the way you said it and it reads as thinly disguised attack on myself , though I know that won't have been your intent .

 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

I didn't really mean it like that.  Who doesn't want benefit frauds to be found out?  We're wasting unfathomable amounts of public money to them.

Likewise, the government are waving deaf ears to companies who don't pay tax, people who do jobs cash in hand etc etc.

They're all crooks, they should all be made to pay the amount which is set by the government, proportionally the big companies who the government are turning a blind eye to are the biggest crooks.  But it's much easier to go after Mr Smith who has swindled 50,000 in benefits over the last 20 years than it is Mr Smith who has avoided paying £30,000,000 in tax over the last 30.

I just want it to be a fair system. 

I heard on radio WM the other day that there are genuine disabled people who have had their benefits cut because they could walk 20m with the aid of 2 walking sticks, so they had their specially modified cars taken away, because that's the threshold - 20m.  That doesn't seem overly fair to me.

We really aren't. 

In 2013/14 - the most recent figures I could find - welfare fraud accounted for 0.7% of the entire welfare budget. If you include overspends, that rockets up to a massive 2.1% of the welfare budget. 

The amount people would have been entitled to claim, but chose not to for various reasons, is vast in comparison. 

Benefit fraud just isn't a problem on a national level in the UK. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

your reply just stripped down the conversation and took away it's context in what was being said ,added to the way you said it and it reads as thinly disguised attack on myself , though I know that won't have been your intent .

 

Ah, OK. No it wasn't the intent. The intent was to remove all the other stuff you wrote and just make a comment in general based around anyone's argument that e.g. I don't use libraries so why should I pay tax that goes towards them - I removed all the personal Tonyh stuff to try not to make it "about you", but about er, lame arguments used in political type/tax debates. I should have been clearer. It was really meant in the same general way that I made a different point about people using hospitals/schools/nurses  as a unit of good spending compared to things they don't like (HS2/Trident etc.) - that wasn't a comment on Chrisp [edit it was your post, and I agreed with you, in that instance ]or his post as such. Just a conversational comment. Perhaps I should be clearer. 

In terms of my beliefs, obviously you're right that I don't like the way the tories govern or behave, but I'd hope that it doesn't totally blind me to somehow only follow a Labour point of view, or a SNP one, or whatever.

[tonyh29]

So the SNP a party of Scotland who don't have any Sunday opening restrictions voted in bulk to increase Sunday opening hours in England and Wales

 

who says democracy doesn't work ... 

[snowychap]

George Osborne clears path for tax cuts in Budget with £1bn benefits raid

Quote

Benefits payments to the disabled are to be cut by more than £1billion in a move that could clear the way for George Osborne to cut taxes for the middle classes in the Budget.

Ministers on Friday announced that more than 600,000 disabled people will lose a portion of their benefits payments, in a move that will save £1.2billion by 2020.

It gives the Chancellor extra money, which insiders believe he could use to cut taxes in his Budget next week.

The Chancellor is set to raise the threshold at which people start paying 40p tax, in a move that could see hundreds of thousands of people pulled out of the higher rate of income tax.

Mr Osborne wants to “accelerate progress” towards the Conservative's manifesto pledge of raising the threshold for the 40p rate to £50,000 in 2020, it is understood.

The decision to slash disability welfare payments by as much as £140 a week will be controversial, with campaigners last night warning that the cuts will be “devastating”.

The disability benefit, known as the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), is one of the most expensive elements of the welfare Budget.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Britain's financial watchdog, Personal Independence Payments were forecast to cost £15.4billion in 2015-16.

It said that spending on the benefit is £1billion-a-year higher than had previously been forecast because more people made successful claims than expected.

Critics have previously warned that successive Governments have failed to reform disability welfare payments because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Tony Blair in 1997 faced protests outside Downing Street over plans to reform welfare payments to the disabled.

The current Conservative Government faced a series of demonstrations over plans to cut a fund which pays for carers to help disabled people in their homes.

In June last year a group of protesters attempted to storm the Chamber in the House of Commons.

Under the plans announced on Friday, people will be less likely to receive disabled benefits if they use aids such as a handrail or a walking stick to get dressed or use the toilet.

Currently, the rules require disabled people to have a certain number of “points” to determine how much money they can claim.

People need eight points to be paid the standard rate of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or 12 points to get the “enhanced” PIP.

The chance announced yesterday means that from next year, people will only earn one point – instead of two – if they need aid to help them to use the toilet or get dressed.

It means that around 640,000 will see their benefits cut, the Government said.

The cuts raise the prospect that Mr Osborne will not now break the Government’s self-imposed benefit cap of £150billion.

...more on link

Possibly one of those leaks to try and pave the way for something less unpalatable?

Edited March 12, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

On 08/03/2016 at 22:14, tonyh29 said:

This sounds as reported like a bad policy and the fact it appears to have been used to teach the Lords a lesson makes it even more abhorrent ... But I wouldn't mind some  clarification on it other than the mirror one quoted .... That link appears to say  there are half a million people who are in this group who won't be affected as it only applies to new claimants and those that break for 12 weeks ... And then the next paragraph we are being told how it affects half a million people who will lose £30 a week

am I misreading something ?

 

On 08/03/2016 at 23:50, snowychap said:

Until it's fully implemented, I doubt we know exactly who it will affect and how it will do it.

I had a quick look at the legislation and it's not terribly clear as it seems to be removing references to the work related activity element of ESA from previous legislation.

There is often lots of talk about 'new claimants' when they actually mean new claims and seeing as though a change of circumstances (which can be anything) can be regarded as a new claim then until one sees it in practice, it's difficult to be sure just who might lose money.

...

Just quickly following up on this, what was said in the budget documents (see Policy Costings pdf) following the original announcement last year was:

Quote

Align Work-related Activity rate with JSA for new claims

Measure description

This measure will remove the additional payments associated with the Employment and Support Allowance Work-related Activity Component and the Universal Credit Limited Capability forWork Element for new benefit claimants from April 2017.

The cost base

The cost base is estimated using DWP’s Employment and Support Allowance flows model based on DWP benefit caseload and expenditure forecasts. The cost base is consistent with OBR Summer Budget 2015 forecast determinants.

Costing

The costing is estimated by calculating the difference between the pre-and post-measure costings of Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit in which the population expected to be entitled to the Employment and Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Component and the Universal Credit Limited Capability for Work Element have the component reduced to £0 for the duration of their claim.

Exchequer Impact (£m)

15/16 : 0

16/17: 0

17/18: + 55

18/19: +225

19/20: +445

20/21: +640

Areas of uncertainty

The main uncertainty in the costing relates to the potential impacts on increased applications to Personal Independence Payment.

 

Allowing for this being a saturday morning and for me getting my back of a fag packet calculations utterly wrong but in order to achieve a £640m annual saving, I've got it that about 423k people need to be receiving the lower rate. I also read the comment above under 'costing' as saying that all those expected to be entitled to ESA WRAG or the UC equivalent would have the component reduced to £0 (I may be reading that incorrectly).

Lastly, in view of the above story from the Torygraph (and I accept we'll have to wait to see whether that actually happens in the budget), I find the 'Areas of Uncertainty' comment pertinent.

[Xann]

Let's see if former coalition minister David Laws ends up in court for his memoirs.

You have to hope this one is bullshit, otherwise the clearing in the woods Owen Paterson needs his ribcage separated from his spine.

Quote

 

… The Government did close a scheme which gave Romanian and Bulgarian migrants temporary six-month permits three years’ ago, despite farmers complaining they find it difficult to get British workers to take seasonal work.

Extracts published in the Mail on Sunday claim even the "more right wing" senior Tories around the Cabinet table were shocked.

Mr Laws wrote: "Someone suggested that while abolishing the scheme might reduce immigration, it could also be very unpopular with farmers, who would no longer find it easy to employ cheap labour for back-breaking outdoor work. 'Oh, but I've thought of that', said Paterson. 'I think I have the answer. We'll try to get more British pensioners picking some of the fruit and vegetables in the fields instead.'

"One of the officials taking notes looked up in surprise, clearly thinking she had heard incorrectly. She hadn't. And Paterson hadn't finished. 'Of course, getting British pensioners to do this work could lead to an increase in farmers' costs,' he said. 'After all, they may be a bit slower doing the work. I've thought of that too. I think we might arrange to exempt British pensioners from the minimum-wage laws, to allow them to do this work.'

"Cabinet colleagues, even the more right-wing Conservatives, listened in stunned silence. The official now realised she had indeed heard correctly, and tried, unsuccessfully, to stifle a laugh."

 

Huff & Mail On Sunday

Some other extracts.

Quote

 

On the Conservative leadership battle:

“‘God. Osborne and Cameron really are desperate for power, aren’t they?’ Nick Clegg told me ... ‘They would sell their mothers to stay in Downing Street. They are petrified of Boris Johnson coming along and challenging them for the leadership.’”

“In the summer of 2012, Nick Clegg and David Cameron had a blunt discussion over boundary changes. Cameron said if they didn’t go ahead, ‘the coalition will look like a shambles’. He also fretted that ‘the only person this will help is Boris Johnson, who is clearly after my job’.”

On Cameron’s view of rightwing MPs:

“Nick said: ‘Cameron is panicking about his rightwing MPs and wants to keep them on side. He told me he thinks his rightwingers are ‘completely mad’, but he wants to keep them on board.’”

On Michael Gove:

“Cameron replied to the deputy prime minister’s complaints about Gove by saying: ‘Look, I understand your frustration over this, Nick. Michael does seem to have gone a bit nuts recently. To be honest, I am being driven around the bend by Michael right now. We know he isn’t very popular in the country.’

“When Nick complained again after another bust-up with Gove, the prime minister laughed. ‘The thing that you’ve got to remember with Michael is that he is basically a bit of a Maoist – he believes that the world makes progress through a process of creative destruction!’”

On Clegg meeting the Queen:

“Clegg told her he feared she may not approve of plans to change the royal succession laws to give first-born girls the right to accede to the throne.

“The Queen was quiet. ‘I hope this change does not cause difficulties, Ma’am?’ said Nick. ‘Good grief, Mr Clegg,’ the Queen said. ‘By then, I’ll be dead!’”

On Philip Hammond and Schengen:

“Even dry-as-dust Tory rightwinger and defence secretary Philip Hammond made the extraordinary suggestion at Cabinet in 2013 that ‘Schengen visas’ ought to be valid in the UK – giving overseas visitors to the EU an automatic right of entry into the UK.

“When my fellow Lib Dem minister Ed Davey burst into laughter over this suggestion, Cameron quickly added, only half-jokingly: ‘If that statement by Philip finds itself on the front page of a newspaper, I’ll fire the person responsible – on sight.’”

On the Home Office and immigration:

“I glanced around at the other civil servants, who smiled knowingly. And then I was let in on the great secret: ‘Minister, immigration has never really been a priority for the Home Office. The Home Office is really only institutionally interested in issues such as crime, disorder and terrorism. Immigration has always been, well, a secondary concern for the Home Office.’”

On Paddy Ashdown telling Clegg to lose weight:

“‘I must tell you about a very odd conversation with Paddy Ashdown,’ Nick said to me over dinner one evening. ‘Oh yes?’ I said, swigging some wine. ‘He came over to see me at the weekend and said: ‘I have something important and extremely difficult to say to you.’

“‘I thought it must be a party sex scandal, but he said: ‘It’s about your weight. You are too fat. It’s not good for your image. As chair of the general election campaign, it’s my duty to tell you to exercise more and eat less. Also: you should wear glasses.’ Then he said I needed to open my legs more when I am on television. I told Miriam [Clegg’s wife] and she couldn’t stop laughing!’”

On the prime minister’s economic briefing:

“Confidential economic briefing for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister was the title of the 10-page briefing paper that I found in my red box one weekend in mid-2014 ... I quickly flicked over a couple of pages to a section on key statistics: ‘Asda Semi-Skimmed Milk-49p,’ I read. Then: ‘800-gram Hovis medium wholemeal loaf – £1.35p’ ‘Heinz Baked Beans – 68p’ ‘Mars Bar – 54p’ ‘Average price of pint of beer in London – £3.60 [Sheffield £2.70]’

“The list continued on and on, finishing with: ‘Latest No 1 Hit Single: I Will Never Let You Down by the Kosovo-born British singer-songwriter Rita Ora.’”

 

Grauniad

[tonyh29]

Seems some of the budget has already leaked ... Is Osborne going to stand there and say education education education during the delivery ?