[Carter78]

(Original post by DigitalGuru)
Missed what is happening in Ramsay and Tunbridge Wells then have you? UKIP mayor and council in the former, UKIP toppling the Tory leader in the latter!

UKIP make sense as a European Parliamentary party and as a pressure group against the Conservatives. Local governance, or even national governance stands at odds with UKIP's central platform (withdrawal from the EU).

Can UKIP ever grow into a national broad-policy-based party like the Greens did in Germany and other European countries?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Monkey_Pete)
the whole point of their system is that someone on minimum wage would not have to pay tax on their income, so the person in your hypothetical there would be paying 0% tax

also there would be a difference in the proportion of income going to tax between someone just over the threshold to someone massively over it, as its a percentage over the threshold. thus someone who earns £12500 (over the threshold) would pay £310 a year income tax (2.5% of total income). whereas someone on £111,500 would pay £31,000 income tax (27.8% of total income).

Okay sorry, I got my maths a bit off.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Why have you not replied to my post?

Which?

[johnaulich]

(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. 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

Is it this one?

1. I don't feel this relevant but I did in a sense. If I was a little prick, I wouldn't get toys. If I did well in school, I got better toys. We didn't have a TV. On to why this is different: Inheritance is generally received by those who have the capacity to work, and although they usually are and continue to do so (unless in the case of old money), this is money that they have not earned. I'll reiterate that before tax kicks in, there needs to be very very big numbers involved (around £320,000).

2. Local and indepedent shops close down all the time due to supermarkets, etc. You only need google it to see the impact - I fear that a cut to upper tier corporation tax would make this even easier than it is already. We need money to stay in our economy, especially in these times, and a good way to do that is to keep regular, above-board, UK-based businesses at an advantage to those who have tax-dodging arrangements or are multinationals.

[green.tea]

I dunno. They may be xenophobes but theyre not neo nazis. I think its good if they take votes from the bnp.

[Dennerers]

(Original post by ukip72)
If your going to comment, be serious, you can't start calling UKIP 'fascist'.

Maybe it was a slight exaggeration, how about 'far right movement'? point is that there is a lot of nonsense on the UKIP website, not only is it irrational, its simply hysterical rambling, in my opinion, even there manifesto has outlined points that point to the build up of fascism, or rightist view, like cutting all 'cultural and arts'... please go on and tell me this isn't similar to that of other crazed dictators of any side of the political spectrum.

[Dennerers]

(Original post by green.tea)
I dunno. They may be xenophobes but theyre not neo nazis. I think its good if they take votes from the bnp.

Sorry but UKIP are, arguably worse than the BNP and EDL, with them theres no secret agenda, UKIP clearly have an underlying agenda. In modern Britain there shouldn't even be these parties, we aren't an extreme nation, never have been, why would that change

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
]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.)

They already do have enough for their basic needs. Why should someone earning £250,000 have to pay £100,000 in tax? Almost 4 times the average national wage just in tax. It is just punishing people who have done well in life.

(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.

This money has already been taxed heavily. I know that the original tax was on the person who died and the inheritance tax is on the surviving relative, but often the burden of the thought of taxation is on the person planning their estate.

(Original post by johnaulich)
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.

(Original post by johnaulich)
1. I don't feel this relevant but I did in a sense. If I was a little prick, I wouldn't get toys. If I did well in school, I got better toys. We didn't have a TV. On to why this is different: Inheritance is generally received by those who have the capacity to work, and although they usually are and continue to do so (unless in the case of old money), this is money that they have not earned. I'll reiterate that before tax kicks in, there needs to be very very big numbers involved (around £320,000).

Same argument can be applied to inheritance money. If you are a little prick to your parents they will be less inclined to give you the money.

Also your point about very big numbers involved. The inheritance tax laws were set well before the housing boom, 1986 to be exact. Since 1986, a £90,000 house in some areas is now worth in excess of £250,000. A house that you could have bought £300,000 in some areas is now worth a million. The law is outdated and the simple fact is that the tax will now affect the majority of home owners, as their property alone will take them over the income tax threshold. Never mind whatever else they have to leave.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Dennerers)
Sorry but UKIP are, arguably worse than the BNP and EDL, with them theres no secret agenda, UKIP clearly have an underlying agenda. In modern Britain there shouldn't even be these parties, we aren't an extreme nation, never have been, why would that change

If they represent the views of people in a democracy then yes we should have them.

[Dennerers]

(Original post by green.tea)
If they represent the views of people in a democracy then yes we should have them.

Ever if those views are to destroy art and culture and may other freedoms?

[green.tea]

(Original post by Dennerers)
Ever if those views are to destroy art and culture and may other freedoms?

Yeah. According to democratic ideal. I struggle to see how you can think otherwise.

[Pitt1988]

I vote ukip. They'd actually take the right sort of action given the country's circumstances, especially with the armed forces. Better than the wishy washy coalition.

[harufi]

(Original post by Samd603)
Mass immigration has devastated communities more than anyone cares to realise, to such an extent where people fear to go outside at night because drunk eastern Europeans rule the streets. And not to mention the thousands of menial jobs that they have taken away from unskilled British workers.

Don't know where you're living but majority of drunks I see are English, although race doesn't come into it - any drunks wandering round are scary.

Same unskilled British workers who don't want to work. Obviously that doesn't apply to all, but for the majority in my area its true.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
They already do have enough for their basic needs. Why should someone earning £250,000 have to pay £100,000 in tax? Almost 4 times the average national wage just in tax. It is just punishing people who have done well in life.



This money has already been taxed heavily. I know that the original tax was on the person who died and the inheritance tax is on the surviving relative, but often the burden of the thought of taxation is on the person planning their estate.





Same argument can be applied to inheritance money. If you are a little prick to your parents they will be less inclined to give you the money.

Also your point about very big numbers involved. The inheritance tax laws were set well before the housing boom, 1986 to be exact. Since 1986, a £90,000 house in some areas is now worth in excess of £250,000. A house that you could have bought £300,000 in some areas is now worth a million. The law is outdated and the simple fact is that the tax will now affect the majority of home owners, as their property alone will take them over the income tax threshold. Never mind whatever else they have to leave.

Does that make £320,000 an amount the average member of the younger generation will see in their lives? No. If you are lucky enough to have that kind of money made available to you, you should make a contribution to the nation so that that money might go towards creating affordable housing solutions and descent services for those who aren't so lucky.

[Dennerers]

(Original post by green.tea)
Yeah. According to democratic ideal. I struggle to see how you can think otherwise.

Clearly we aren't going to agree. but i can appreciate your view, but no democracy is perfect.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Does that make £320,000 an amount the average member of the younger generation will see in their lives? No. If you are lucky enough to have that kind of money made available to you, you should make a contribution to the nation so that that money might go towards creating affordable housing solutions and descent services for those who aren't so lucky.

Did you read my post? Yes it does mean that it is an amount that they will see because all their parents estates are worth that much simply through their family home. So in the future we will see the inheritance tax law affecting almost everyone, not just a small minority of people that you alluded to earlier.

I know you are an egalitarian, and I respect that, so there isn't much point in responding to your last post as I won't change your views and you won't change mine.

However why should those who aren't so lucky be forever dependent on those who are? Why don't they go out there and make their own luck, and secure money for future generations of their family. Why should the people who have earned their money have so much of it taken away from them?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Did you read my post? Yes it does mean that it is an amount that they will see because all their parents estates are worth that much simply through their family home. So in the future we will see the inheritance tax law affecting almost everyone, not just a small minority of people that you alluded to earlier.

I know you are an egalitarian, and I respect that, so there isn't much point in responding to your last post as I won't change your views and you won't change mine.

However why should those who aren't so lucky be forever dependent on those who are? Why don't they go out there and make their own luck, and secure money for future generations of their family. Why should the people who have earned their money have so much of it taken away from them?

I see what you mean, but that's quite a difficult thing to do if you can't even afford somewhere to live. People who earn their own keep aren't having that taken away from them in inheritance tax - my central point is that it is not earned. Where I live, having a house worth that much is not normal, perhaps it is where you live and I do understand that house prices have rocketed in recent years. However, the £320,000 minus tax is still more than enough to buy a nice house outright, which puts you in very good stead compared to much of this generation.

[Harolinho]

It sounds bad but I'm not so worried about racism from UKIP as I am xenophobia. I disagree fundamentally on a lot of issues with UKIP (I feel they are very much about the fight and less about the aftermath), but I think their existence is actually pretty important. They are - at least - voicing opinions to open further discussion, they are creating passion in people for and against them, and they are challenging traditional views. This isn't to say that I support what they do and why, but to an extent how they do it - and I think that the country needs a bit of excitement and controversy in politics, to rattle the middle-of-the-road and somewhat dulled parties that have forgotten what they are supposed to stand for their never ending quest for public appeal. Conceivably if UKIP came into power and their was strong support grown against them, it may reignite passion in one of the big parties, or give birth to new political forces.

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by Carter78)
I can see your (and UKIP's) view on this. They're Libertarian so see no role for the state in introducing into people's private lives - in this case religion.

However as a positive minded liberal Conservative Libertarian (not a snappy title I know but hey) I just don't see the downside in same-sex marriage.

Even if the law was passed and the gay community could go to Church to get married - but nevertheless chose not to, then at least they would be able to make that choice out of free will, not because they legally are not allowed to (as is currently the case).

Moreover there are plenty of religious homosexuals who are just as strong in their faith as heterosexuals, why shouldn't they have the right to get married in their Church?

Plus, as an Atheist I don't have much time for the idea that religious beliefs are somehow "out of bounds" and shouldn't be challenged. Let's have the debate about marriage with the religious community! Let's challenge their views in respectful, open and thorough debate, just as we would debate any other political issue. Why do the religious have this get out of jail free card on the issue of gay marriage?

If I wanted to get married inside your house, it should be your choice to allow it. Churches need there rights protected, they shouldn't be forced into gay marriage. They should choose who gets married in their church.

[T.Fleming]

(Original post by Dennerers)
Sorry but UKIP are, arguably worse than the BNP and EDL, with them theres no secret agenda, UKIP clearly have an underlying agenda. In modern Britain there shouldn't even be these parties, we aren't an extreme nation, never have been, why would that change

I would never in my life vote UKIP; however, does it not make the people who fight against fascism, by forcefully removing fascist parties from the political sphere, 'fascists' themselves?

I would love for fascism to become an extinct ideology, but one shouldn't do this by simply banning people's opinions and views. If my history is correct didn't Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco ban other political parties? We shouldn't fight fascism with fascism.