[modernmorris]

Ukip are about fairness and growth a new way of looking at problems and issues, the old stale party policies don't work, they've had time to prove that, ukip is nothing like a thatcherite party, one thing I have found is that Nigel Farage will gladly listen to anyone, you me or the milkman, and he listens with an open mind, I found a simple way of solving unemployment which would work very well and cost nothing, I sent this to Chris Grayling (tory) I received a reply simply dismissing the whole thing and saying they believe the way forward is to cut benefits, Nigel farage on the other hand was very open to the idea and has not dismissed it.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
1. It's not, what is a problem is removing that money from the economy.
2. No, but a lower corporation tax benefits the bigger companies, which includes the multinationals.
3. If you've a greater ability to pay, you should pay a greater amount so as those with little money to be able to give up through taxation are able to keep more of their income for basic needs (food, utility bills etc.)

1.You're making the assumption that we live to feed the economy
2....and 'hurts' smaller companies to what extent? We can scaremonger all day, but are there any statistics that suggest crippling damage to small companies?
3. Says who?

(Original post by johnaulich)
1. There's no problem, your child is just expected to pay some tax on it. Fair game I would say, given that he didn't even earn it.

2. I know that, which is why I put upper tier in brackets.

3. I'm an egalitarian. I think the rich should be taxed more than the poor in order to encourage wealth distribution and improve services across the board.

1. Did you earn the toys your parents gave you as a child? The electricity used to watch your television? Where do we draw the line?
2. Same as in reply to other post
3. Fair enough

[T.Fleming]

UKIP and Thatcher's Conservative Party are extremely similar both economically and socially; and they aren't looking for new ways to solve problems, they are just using the policies of right-wing Tories. I do admire Nigel Farage for his perseverance in trying to make UKIP a 'big party', but the only reason the average man would ever consider voting for UKIP is their EU policy. Just out of interest, what is your solution to unemployment (hopefully its not getting rid of the minimum wage)?

[Chiko 1001]

(Original post by johnaulich)
1. There's no problem, your child is just expected to pay some tax on it. Fair game I would say, given that he didn't even earn it.

2. I know that, which is why I put upper tier in brackets.

3. I'm an egalitarian. I think the rich should be taxed more than the poor in order to encourage wealth distribution and improve services across the board.

It's already been taxed. Heavily. Why does the state get to help themselves to a second round of tax when you die? It's been paid up already, inheritance tax is an absolute joke.

If the rich are taxed heavier than the poor, where is the incentive to work harder? Having a state that helps itself to as much as 50% of your earnings doesn't incentivise anybody, it's robbery. I'm all for public services but the state is a safety net that ensures a basic standard of living for everyone, you should be free to do with that as you wish. Fairness means equality, which means everyone contributing the same percentage. Heavily taxing the better off just vilifies them.

[modernmorris]

Ukip are about fairness and growth a new way of looking at problems and issues, the old stale party policies don't work, they've had time to prove that, ukip is nothing like a thatcherite party, one thing I have found is that Nigel Farage will gladly listen to anyone, you me or the milkman, and he listens with an open mind, I found a simple way of solving unemployment which would work very well and cost nothing, I sent this to Chris Grayling (tory) I received a reply simply dismissing the whole thing and saying they believe the way forward is to cut benefits, Nigel farage on the other hand was very open to the idea and has not dismissed it.

[Gangee]

UKIP is not racist, it is pro Britain, big difference

[T.Fleming]

(Original post by Gangee)
UKIP is not racist, it is pro Britain, big difference

I have never considered UKIP to be a racist party, however, their policy banning the burqa does fringe on islamophobia.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
1.You're making the assumption that we live to feed the economy
2....and 'hurts' smaller companies to what extent? We can scaremonger all day, but are there any statistics that suggest crippling damage to small companies?
3. Says who?

1. No, I'm not. I'm assuming that the economy is linked to general day-to-day life. So long as it is, removing amounts and storing it away weakens the financial state of a country and so can result in negative effects on the public.
2. 50 pubs a week close down, that the likes of Asda, Tesco etc. can sell alcohol so cheaply due to their massive profit margins from other products and so undercut the public house is near certainly a contributing factor to that.
3. To use the old Marx quote - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If people have more money, they have a greater surplus income after the basic needs are accounted for - they have a greater ability to contribute and so should be expected to contribute more than those who have very little left over after covering the necessities.

[Sean9001]

I think there is enough sanity left over in the British electorate to keep the UKIP nonsense-politics out of Westminster to a large extent.

[modernmorris]

WHEN the uk finally gets out of the EU whether it's a withdrawal or the collapse of the regime, people will start to see how bad the EU is or was, then ukip will be seen as being right all along, you dismissive head in the sand types who only see the 2 clone parties lab & con, will eat your words.

[modernmorris]

http://www.simplesite.com/builder/pa...ageid=97812257 was rejected out of hand by Chris Grayling, he said he would simply prefer to cut benefits

[T.Fleming]

I predict that by the next general election both Labour and the Tories will have promised a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU; then UKIP will become a distant memory of the political past, only ever remembered by a few academics.

[Dennerers]

(Original post by ukip72)
So UKIP supporters can't be rational now? I'm not allowed to defend my own party when you attack it with complete nonsense?

Do you even read your own website!? It absolute irrational fascist ballocks!

[meenu89]

No.

[T.Fleming]

(Original post by modernmorris)
http://www.simplesite.com/builder/pa...ageid=97812257 was rejected out of hand by Chris Grayling, he said he would simply prefer to cut benefits

unfortunately it won't let me see it, as i need a log in.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Chiko 1001)
It's already been taxed. Heavily. Why does the state get to help themselves to a second round of tax when you die? It's been paid up already, inheritance tax is an absolute joke.

If the rich are taxed heavier than the poor, where is the incentive to work harder? Having a state that helps itself to as much as 50% of your earnings doesn't incentivise anybody, it's robbery. I'm all for public services but the state is a safety net that ensures a basic standard of living for everyone, you should be free to do with that as you wish. Fairness means equality, which means everyone contributing the same percentage. Heavily taxing the better off just vilifies them.

Inheritance tax is a tax placed on the person receiving it - you can't tax a dead person, so your above point is moot. There's still incentive to work harder - some of our neighbours in Europe have much higher personal income tax rates, and they don't suffer this problem. Let me ask you this: Where is the incentive to work harder (or at all), if you're sitting on a ****load of money from mummy and daddy that you can live on the interest from and pass down your family indefinitely?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
1. No, I'm not. I'm assuming that the economy is linked to general day-to-day life. So long as it is, removing amounts and storing it away weakens the financial state of a country and so can result in negative effects on the public.
2. 50 pubs a week close down, that the likes of Asda, Tesco etc. can sell alcohol so cheaply due to their massive profit margins from other products and so undercut the public house is near certainly a contributing factor to that.
3. To use the old Marx quote - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If people have more money, they have a greater surplus income after the basic needs are accounted for - they have a greater ability to contribute and so should be expected to contribute more than those who have very little left over after covering the necessities.

Thank you, sir. They had me surrounded! :P

[Gangee]

(Original post by T.Fleming)
I have never considered UKIP to be a racist party, however, their policy banning the burqa does fringe on islamophobia.

Many people on here won't like this but I personally think if you want to live in our country you should live by our rules/culture. It makes me feel uncomfortable and threatened when I see people in burqas, and it's not right as the majority in your own country to feel uncomfortable

[Chiko 1001]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Inheritance tax is a tax placed on the person receiving it - you can't tax a dead person, so your above point is moot. There's still incentive to work harder - some of our neighbours in Europe have much higher personal income tax rates, and they don't suffer this problem. Let me ask you this: Where is the incentive to work harder (or at all), if you're sitting on a ****load of money from mummy and daddy that you can live on the interest from and pass down your family indefinitely?

Oh come off it. The almost irrelevantly tiny number of people who will inherit the millions it would require to live an average lifestyle for 60 years without a single source of earned income pales in comparison to the other 60 million of us who are paying ridiculous percentage rates on a far less substantial estate. You seem to think there are vast scores of multi millionaires out there but making policy for the sake of 0.5% of the population is not only unethical but it's delusional bigotry.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Chiko 1001)
Oh come off it. The almost irrelevantly tiny number of people who will inherit the millions it would require to live an average lifestyle for 60 years without a single source of earned income pales in comparison to the other 60 million of us who are paying ridiculous percentage rates on a far less substantial estate. You seem to think there are vast scores of multi millionaires out there but making policy for the sake of 0.5% of the population is not only unethical but it's delusional bigotry.

It's not ridiculous it's about paying a bit of tax on money you didn't earn. If you don't receive an awful lot, you don't pay an awful lot. I don't see what the big deal is, frankly. You have to have inherited over a quarter of a million pounds before you pay anything. I don't think most people will see that much money in their lives.