Don't vote Conservative ... We've came to far as human beings.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by QuantumOverlord
Did you read what I said in my last post? There is no policy that will benefit the poor more than the rich.
Except of course the higher personal allowance for income tax as an easy first drop without having to explain at length.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by zippyRN
Except of course the higher perdonal alloeance for income tax as an easy first drop without having to explain at length.
I've already gone into the issues of raising income tax, it only works if GDP is not already maximised by current taxation rates, and that is something that it is very difficult to know. So yes you can raise taxes, but the higher the taxes, the lower the economic productivity. There comes a point where the later outweighs the former and long term revenue decreases. In other words, if you tax too high, then you make the poor poorer, not richer.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by QuantumOverlord
I've already gone into the issues of raising income tax, it only works if GDP is not already maximised by current taxation rates, and that is something that it is very difficult to know. So yes you can raise taxes, but the higher the taxes, the lower the economic productivity. There comes a point where the later outweighs the former and long term revenue decreases. In other words, if you tax too high, then you make the poor poorer, not richer.
are you a bot ? as the above has nothing to do with the personal allowance for income tax.
the personal allowance is the amount you can earn before paying income tax .
someone wanted an example of the current government's policies that support ' the poor'
arguably the personal allowance changes do that, especially with the tapering of the personal allowance for very high earners ... the most benefit is felt by people earning under the median average and some benefit felt by the majority until the tapering of the personal allowance hits ...
you do understand what the personal allowance is for income tax purposes don;t you ?
Original post by zippyRN
are you a bot ? as the above has nothing to do with the personal allowance for income tax.
the personal allowance is the amount you can earn before paying income tax .
someone wanted an example of the current government's policies that support ' the poor'
arguably the personal allowance changes do that, especially with the tapering of the personal allowance for very high earners ... the most benefit is felt by people earning under the median average and some benefit felt by the majority until the tapering of the personal allowance hits ...
you do understand what the personal allowance is for income tax purposes don;t you ?
the personal allowance is the amount you can earn before paying income tax .
someone wanted an example of the current government's policies that support ' the poor'
arguably the personal allowance changes do that, especially with the tapering of the personal allowance for very high earners ... the most benefit is felt by people earning under the median average and some benefit felt by the majority until the tapering of the personal allowance hits ...
you do understand what the personal allowance is for income tax purposes don;t you ?
If you had spelt personal correctly, then I wouldn't have made that mistake. Look, I'm not a spelling nazi, but if it isn't readable then I will just skip over it.
Anyway what is your point? We already have the personal allowance, are you suggesting it should be raised because that is not a problem free strategy either.
This thread lasted longer than I thought. I'm voting conservative because without a strong economy we can't have a welfare state, we can't deliver the top service expected from the nhs, we can't reduce tuition fees, etc. (Improve any of the other big sources of public spending.)
Let them have another term to sort out the economy (fixing it in 5 years was ambitious at best), then you can consider voting someone else in. As it is though, the Tories are the only ones who will sort out our economy. The economy is on the up, we're the fastest growing economy in the g7, let it continue instead of undoing all of the work that has gone in over the past 5 years. We know what the Tories are doing is working, let it continue for one more term.
Think about fixing the economy in terms of getting fit and healthy, the government is your exercise and eating regime. If you change your exercise regime (government) every chance you get, you'll never achieve your end goal, you'll be one of the people who goes to the gym for months on end and still looks like they did when they started (****arounditis). You stick with it for a long period of time and get the body/fitness (economy) that you want. Then you can swap routines.
Let them have another term to sort out the economy (fixing it in 5 years was ambitious at best), then you can consider voting someone else in. As it is though, the Tories are the only ones who will sort out our economy. The economy is on the up, we're the fastest growing economy in the g7, let it continue instead of undoing all of the work that has gone in over the past 5 years. We know what the Tories are doing is working, let it continue for one more term.
Think about fixing the economy in terms of getting fit and healthy, the government is your exercise and eating regime. If you change your exercise regime (government) every chance you get, you'll never achieve your end goal, you'll be one of the people who goes to the gym for months on end and still looks like they did when they started (****arounditis). You stick with it for a long period of time and get the body/fitness (economy) that you want. Then you can swap routines.
It is precisely this sort of arrogant, 'world owes me a favour' attitude that means I categorically WILL be voting Conservative.
The notion that one should 'expect' a high salary purely on the basis that they have been in higher education is laughable, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how the economy works.
I have a wonderful idea - how about you stop trying to peer pressure others into voting for a particular party based on your own pathetic delusion.
Same goes for UKIP, same goes for The Greens.
We are a democracy, and everyone had the right to vote for who they wish, for the reasons they seem valid. it is people like you who are at risk of putting us back to the stone age.
The notion that one should 'expect' a high salary purely on the basis that they have been in higher education is laughable, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how the economy works.
I have a wonderful idea - how about you stop trying to peer pressure others into voting for a particular party based on your own pathetic delusion.
Same goes for UKIP, same goes for The Greens.
We are a democracy, and everyone had the right to vote for who they wish, for the reasons they seem valid. it is people like you who are at risk of putting us back to the stone age.
Original post by billydisco
What exactly has been reversed? You mean spending on the nation's credit card? Yeah reversing that is generally a good thing mate 
A country cannot spend spend spend beyond its means.
A country cannot spend spend spend beyond its means.
I'll post a few neat graphs to more accurately portray exactly what I mean..
Notice how the Labour government that was elected in 1997 ushered in a dramatic fall in child poverty, homelessness and strong growth in wages. In fact, homelessness - as in, rough sleeping - was on the path to nonexistence if Labour had continued with its policies. The Tories can't even blame the recession for that because this didn't start UNTIL they were elected in 2010.
Overspending is the go-to argument for any Tory, because nothing else works. I think most Tory voters secretly know that the party they profess to support is actually damaging to our country, and that when they are elected, all sorts of important social measures go down the toilet. It happened during Thatcher (I could seriously ramble on here about all sorts of heinous crimes Thatcher allowed to happen, but I won't), it happened during Major, and it's happening with Cameron.
Actually, the overspending argument doesn't even make sense, considering debt to GDP was occasionally below 50% during the 2000s..
And, they managed to have a budget surplus - albeit a small one, and when the government began running a deficit again, it was no worse than what the Conservatives oversaw in the 90s.
So really, the Tories are left with very little to go on, and basically rely on smearing the opposition based on silly things like demeanor and physical appearance, and a gullible electorate who will believe 30-second soundbites about how awful Labour were and how they spent all of our money.
So no, I will not be voting Conservative in May, and I advise anyone with a conscience to do exactly the same, or at least vote for any party that isn't right-wing.
(edited 9 years ago)
So you prefer Nigel Farage and his band of monkeys to destroy Britain? The way I see it, Britain has been steady for the past couple of years thanks to Cameron. If Farage wins, and the Britain quits the EU, we are officially f***ed.
Labour will probably join on with Farage if they haven't already and bye bye goes Britain.
Labour will probably join on with Farage if they haven't already and bye bye goes Britain.
Original post by sookywooky
I'll post a few neat graphs to more accurately portray exactly what I mean..
Notice how the Labour government that was elected in 1997 ushered in a dramatic fall in child poverty, homelessness and strong growth in wages. In fact, homelessness - as in, rough sleeping - was on the path to nonexistence if Labour had continued with its policies. The Tories can't even blame the recession for that because this didn't start UNTIL they were elected in 2010.
Overspending is the go-to argument for any Tory, because nothing else works. I think most Tory voters secretly know that the party they profess to support is actually damaging to our country, and that when they are elected, all sorts of important social measures go down the toilet. It happened during Thatcher (I could seriously ramble on here about all sorts of heinous crimes Thatcher allowed to happen, but I won't), it happened during Major, and it's happening with Cameron.
Actually, the overspending argument doesn't even make sense, considering debt to GDP was occasionally below 50% during the 2000s..
And, they managed to have a budget surplus - albeit a small one, and when the government began running a deficit again, it was no worse than what the Conservatives oversaw in the 90s.
So really, the Tories are left with very little to go on, and basically rely on smearing the opposition based on silly things like demeanor and physical appearance, and a gullible electorate who will believe 30-second soundbites about how awful Labour were and how they spent all of our money.
So no, I will not be voting Conservative in May, and I advise anyone with a conscience to do exactly the same, or at least vote for any party that isn't right-wing.
Notice how the Labour government that was elected in 1997 ushered in a dramatic fall in child poverty, homelessness and strong growth in wages. In fact, homelessness - as in, rough sleeping - was on the path to nonexistence if Labour had continued with its policies. The Tories can't even blame the recession for that because this didn't start UNTIL they were elected in 2010.
Overspending is the go-to argument for any Tory, because nothing else works. I think most Tory voters secretly know that the party they profess to support is actually damaging to our country, and that when they are elected, all sorts of important social measures go down the toilet. It happened during Thatcher (I could seriously ramble on here about all sorts of heinous crimes Thatcher allowed to happen, but I won't), it happened during Major, and it's happening with Cameron.
Actually, the overspending argument doesn't even make sense, considering debt to GDP was occasionally below 50% during the 2000s..
And, they managed to have a budget surplus - albeit a small one, and when the government began running a deficit again, it was no worse than what the Conservatives oversaw in the 90s.
So really, the Tories are left with very little to go on, and basically rely on smearing the opposition based on silly things like demeanor and physical appearance, and a gullible electorate who will believe 30-second soundbites about how awful Labour were and how they spent all of our money.
So no, I will not be voting Conservative in May, and I advise anyone with a conscience to do exactly the same, or at least vote for any party that isn't right-wing.
Did you conveniently forget or not know that for 97-01 Labour pretty much just followed the conservative plans? So you can say it was Labour's doing, but being in power does not mean it was you that did it, particularly if it's something with a lagged effect and/or you're just continuing the plans of the guy before. You might also want use some up to date graphs, not ones from years and years ago with forecasts when actual figures exist.
As for the "they weren't overspending" argument, that's because this is back in the days where people seemed to think a deficit is fine as long as the economy is growing faster than teh debt. It may have been going down as a percentage of GDP, but the debt was still going up, which means the interest was going up, which means the amount to be spent on services would be going down.
(edited 9 years ago)
So Jeremy Hunt today said that the tories inherited a contracting economy. Not true, it was growing 1.9%.
So in addition to making up labour's policies, attacking ed personally and making unfunded pledges on the NHS, they are now resorting to outright lies.
The desperation is getting to new depths now and it's absolutely hilarious to see it.
So in addition to making up labour's policies, attacking ed personally and making unfunded pledges on the NHS, they are now resorting to outright lies.
The desperation is getting to new depths now and it's absolutely hilarious to see it.
Original post by Bornblue
So Jeremy Hunt today said that the tories inherited a contracting economy. Not true, it was growing 1.9%.
So in addition to making up labour's policies, attacking ed personally and making unfunded pledges on the NHS, they are now resorting to outright lies.
The desperation is getting to new depths now and it's absolutely hilarious to see it.
So in addition to making up labour's policies, attacking ed personally and making unfunded pledges on the NHS, they are now resorting to outright lies.
The desperation is getting to new depths now and it's absolutely hilarious to see it.
Inflation was 3.3% in 2010. If the economy was "growing" at 1.9% in 2010, then as the rate of growth was less than the rate of inflation, the economy was contracting.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate
I have yet to meet a left wing voter who has any grasp of economics.
Original post by Appeal to reason
Inflation was 3.3% in 2010. If the economy was "growing" at 1.9% in 2010, then as the rate of growth was less than the rate of inflation, the economy was contracting.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate
I have yet to meet a left wing voter who has any grasp of economics.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate
I have yet to meet a left wing voter who has any grasp of economics.
That's just not true. Just like the rest of your party, in the absence of any political argument you are resorting to lies.The tories don't measure their own economic growth comapred to inflation but measure Labour's according to it?
Okay then.
Original post by Bornblue
That's just not true. Just like the rest of your party, in the absence of any political argument you are resorting to lies.The tories don't measure their own economic growth comapred to inflation but measure Labour's according to it?
Okay then.
Okay then.
That's irrelevant, the point was that they inherited a contracting economy. (I presume you meant nominal growth of 1.9% anyway)
Original post by sacca
Vote green for an eco feminist britain! The tories are misogynist, Cameron wouldn't even wear a 'I'm a feminist' T-Shirt. Also he called a women darling. **** the tories!
Not to mention they are all white upper class cis hetero males aka they have massive privilege and cannot be trusted to represent PoC or women or other oppressed groups.
Not to mention they are all white upper class cis hetero males aka they have massive privilege and cannot be trusted to represent PoC or women or other oppressed groups.
You did not check your privilege so you got banned.
Original post by Appeal to reason
That's irrelevant, the point was that they inherited a contracting economy. (I presume you meant nominal growth of 1.9% anyway)
Except it isn't irrelevant. You don't measure economic growth against inflation. The tories haven't for their term, why do they do so for Labour's?
Original post by Bornblue
Except it isn't irrelevant. You don't measure economic growth against inflation. The tories haven't for their term, why do they do so for Labour's?
Jeremy hunt stated that the Tories inherited a contracting economy (I.e. nominal growth < inflation), you said this was false, I showed it to be true. Its not something you can argue.
2014 growth was 2.8% yes? Inflation was 2%, so not only did the nominal GDP increase, but so did the real GDP. So the economy did not contract in 2014.
As far as I understand it, you can use nominal growth to compare vs other economies, but real growth for comparing GDP against previous years.
Original post by Appeal to reason
Jeremy hunt stated that the Tories inherited a contracting economy (I.e. nominal growth < inflation), you said this was false, I showed it to be true. Its not something you can argue.
2014 growth was 2.8% yes? Inflation was 2%, so not only did the nominal GDP increase, but so did the real GDP. So the economy did not contract in 2014.
As far as I understand it, you can use nominal growth to compare vs other economies, but real growth for comparing GDP against previous years.
2014 growth was 2.8% yes? Inflation was 2%, so not only did the nominal GDP increase, but so did the real GDP. So the economy did not contract in 2014.
As far as I understand it, you can use nominal growth to compare vs other economies, but real growth for comparing GDP against previous years.
You're just lying. It was growing 1.9% Growth is not measured against inflation.
Original post by Bornblue
You're just lying. It was growing 1.9% Growth is not measured against inflation.
Real terms growth is
Wages aren't measured against inflation so labour's been talking crap about falling wages for years. Works both ways
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
You're just lying. It was growing 1.9% Growth is not measured against inflation.
NOMINAL GROWTH OF 1.9%
An economy is contracting, if real GDP decreases(any NOMINAL growth is at a rate less than inflation). Which it was in 2010. Doesn't matter who says it, Tory, Labour, whoever, the economy contracted in 2010.
It still grew in GDP, but at a rate less than inflation, so the net effect was having had a lower real GDP. (It may be greater, but counts for less)
A stagnant economy is one growing (just looking at nominal GDP) at the inflation rate. From one year to the next there is no real change, the economy has grown, but it is no better or worse off than the previous year.
It is actually growing (I.e. you can say the economy is better off from one year to the next) if nominal growth is greater than the inflation rate.
It is contracting (I.e. from one year to the next you are worse off) if nominal gdp growth is less than the inflation rate. This is the case we are discussing.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Real terms growth is
Wages aren't measured against inflation so labour's been talking crap about falling wages for years. Works both ways
Posted from TSR Mobile
Wages aren't measured against inflation so labour's been talking crap about falling wages for years. Works both ways
Posted from TSR Mobile
Exactly.
If your wage grew 10% in a year, but inflation was 15%, your money wouldn't go as far as it did the previous year. Your wage would have "contracted".
Labour measures wages against inflation. Wages ARE rising, but when labour says they are falling, they mean they're not rising as fast as inflation, so despite having more money, its not going as far.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Should i vote Labour?
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- They've taken the smarties out of smarties pop ups!
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Misanthropy
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 1 - 7152/1 23 May 2023 [Exam chat]
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- Are communists stupid?
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
