Turn on thread page Beta

Third of voters believe Tories are party of 'upper classes' watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron will have to tread so carefully because of this public view of his party; being an eton educated bullingdon badged 'toff'; that I doubt he'll be as favourable to the upper classes as you'd think he will. Wtf do they want anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    My parents are separated hence why I didn't add them together. When my Dad dies, my inheritance will be taxed - Outrageous really.
    I see. Although you still get the use of two thresholds, unless your dad owns all the assets.

    I don't see why its so outrageous. You've done absolutely nothing to earn that money, yet you are still getting a truly enormous sum.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    My parents are separated hence why I didn't add them together. When my Dad dies, my inheritance will be taxed - Outrageous really.
    Stop whinging/showing off - at least you get inheritance!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron is rich. The Tories are rich. Labour are rich. They're all bloody rich. I just want someone who can do a good job, I don't give a hoot if they're Eton educated or born in a dustbin.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon1212)
    Come on, its not THAT bad!
    Exactly.
    - I think its time for a break from labour, but i would still vote labour over tory.

    LibDems certainly get my vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They ideologically are the party of the 'upper classes'
    oui?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yeahhh but david camerons hot so who cares :love:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1) "Wow - Even with David Cameron as the leader, people still perceive the Conservative Party as the party for the rich. "

    .... Because EVERYONE can afford an Eton education???

    2) To the guy whining he "only" will get hundreds of thousands from his dad: Neither of my parents can afford to buy a property. Thousands of people can't even afford food and water to survive. Wake up and smell the coffee!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OrdinaryDay)
    The Conservatives lag notably behind the other parties in the diversity of their MPs, consistently failing to draw them from backgrounds other than wealthy, middle-aged white male. Not that this is bad per se, of course, but it does foster certain ideas about how in touch they can really be.
    Well, we certainly disagree with ideas like affirmative action. It's a fact of life that it is largely men who are attracted to politics - from my experience, most university political societies reflect that even though there are more women in higher education than men.

    As for being in touch, I've never really understood the concept to mean that. I think whole governments can go out of touch with the popular mood - I think the current government is quite an extreme example of that, where it seems they cannot do anything that people are happy with - but I don't really see it as something which attaches to individuals. If you're suggesting, for example, that a Middle Eastern Muslim working class woman cannot be adequately represented by a white, middle-class man then I'd say you're wrong - and that any attempt to try and end that sort of thing would be futile.

    Is the suggestion, for example, that I - as a white, middle class man - could not be represented by a young, female Muslim woman in Parliament? I'd very much disagree with that.


    As a libertarian, I agree - but I think they are favouring the wrong kinds of wealth. Instead of lowering income tax, which encourages upward mobility and fruition of those with talent, the Tories plan to cut inheritance tax thresh-holds. All that does is make the wealthy wealthier through no extra merit of their own - as an aspiring citizen I would rather have my parents' income (to which I have less claim, not actually having earnt it myself) taxed than my own income. Wouldn't you agree?
    I would say there is a libertarian case for the cutting of inheritance tax too. Remember that this is wealth which has already been taxed at the point of earning, and will be taxed again at the point of spending. Essentially it is a limitation not on how wealth is earned, but rather how it is disposed of - essentially it is creating a spending hierarchy which suggests that people should be penalised for giving money to others rather than frittering it away on themselves. I think that's fairly wrong too - and I don't believe the government should make judgements of that sort on what someone does with what is, after all, his property.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I would say there is a libertarian case for the cutting of inheritance tax too. Remember that this is wealth which has already been taxed at the point of earning, and will be taxed again at the point of spending. Essentially it is a limitation not on how wealth is earned, but rather how it is disposed of - essentially it is creating a spending hierarchy which suggests that people should be penalised for giving money to others rather than frittering it away on themselves. I think that's fairly wrong too - and I don't believe the government should make judgements of that sort on what someone does with what is, after all, his property.
    I'm also libertarian leaning (with reservations), but the problem is if you drop inheritance tax--or rather raise the threshold (although I'm in agreement with the previous poster that income tax should be the bigger priority) then with the current state of things the revenue is going to need to come from somewhere. And the Tory budget is still far from transparently balanced.
    I'm all in favour of this coming from environmental taxation, to kill two birds with one stone. But I question whether the Tory's will have the guts to bring in real change in order to bring in the revenue they need. And I also question whether more regressive taxation might just cause a new generation of discouraged workers like those still hanging around from the Thatcher years and before...with the state pension funds in the state they are, we can't afford more people on benefits.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildebeest)
    (perhaps the Tories attracted more working class support under John Major).
    Not at all. Firstly because of the Thatcher aftershocks (Poll Tax, anyone?) and secondly because of their squeezing of public services such as state education and the NHS. Tony Blair did say in 1997 "We have only 24 hours to save the NHS" - or something like that. Thirdly, there was an increasing amount of political infighting in the Conservative party at the time, which all led to Labour's landslide election victory in May 1997. Probably the two reasons why the Conservatives won in 1992 were a few Thatcherites still wishing to thank the Tory party for making them rich rather than thatcher herself and those readers of the Sun, who saw this on the front page of their favourite newspaper on election day 1992:


    Note: For those who don't know, Neil Kinnock was the leader of the Labour party from 1983-1992.
    Offline

    13
    I think the conservatives are treated harshly on this point, or maybe I should say labour are treated too generously.

    It's an issue with politicians, and not with the tories exclusively. I know Brown happens to not be privately educated but this is pretty rare. When people say "the conservatives have more Eton educated members in their cabinet since someone else ages ago" that someone else was the labour prime minister, I forget which one it was, I think it was Macmillan. But labour in those days were hardcore socialists, and their cabinet had more people educated at Eton than this tory cabinet, does that mean they only cared about the rich? Why were they socialists then?

    The problem is that politics is so competitive it helps to know people, and the best way to be "in the know" is to go to the same school as them. Plus, at the risk of sounding like some kind of toff myself - I'm sure for all its faults people educated at Eton are actually forced to work hard, and I'm sure they get good results and a good education; and the public will always want people to have good qualifications if they're going to be spending their hard earned money!

    The tories don't help themselves with their policies though; to really remove themselves of their bad image of screwing over the poor they should forget about the inheritance tax changes, I actually agree with their policy there in principle but it allows labour politicians in a tight spot to say "well you know what, the tories want to help the richest 2%" even if inheritance tax is irrelevant entirely to the issue the labour politican is being grilled on! I've seen this many times now and the worst part is, it's very effective.

    Instead of doing that they should make some big policy aimed at helping the working class. Using the excellent lib dem policy of starting income tax at 10k for example, that instead of the inheritance tax policy would probably see the conservatives about 5% higher up in polls which could be crucial.

    As my last words, for those who say the tories hate the poor. Since labour took over in 1997 the gap between the richest and the poorest in society has actually increased.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobo1234)
    Yeah when will they announce whether they're standing or not?
    I don't know.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Yeah, that's just what we're all interested in -- voting for a party which has no chance of gaining a single seat.
    Some people want to stand up for their ideology and principles rather than backing a party they don't agree with simply because they'll win. To gain seats isn't the only way to make a difference, when you help a small party grow and they become more and more known to Joe public they'll grow faster still, and eventually they'll be large enough to influence other parties policies even without MP's e.g. the green party.

    Plus, nobody asked you, so no need to butt in really.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I see. Although you still get the use of two thresholds, unless your dad owns all the assets.

    I don't see why its so outrageous. You've done absolutely nothing to earn that money, yet you are still getting a truly enormous sum.
    Dad owns the assets in the house including the house.

    I am outraged because why the hell is the Government taxing what my dad leaves me? If a parent works hard to leave their children something; such as a home, the Government has no right to tax it.

    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    Stop whinging- at least you get inheritance!
    If someones parents works extremely hard to provide their children with a house or other assets the Government has no right to tax it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If someones parents works extremely hard to provide their children with a house or other assets the Government has no right to tax it.
    And some people's parents work extremely hard to provide for their children but never get the benefit of owning a house or giving inheritence to their children. Diddums.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    And some people's parents work extremely hard to provide for their children but never get the benefit of owning a house or giving inheritence to their children. Diddums.
    Okay Blinkbelle, so your argument is this.
    Because not all parents can provide such assets to their children, the ones that can should be heavily taxed.

    How is that fair? Just because they have managed to be more successful financially doesn't mean it is right for you, the government or anyone to condemn them for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Dad owns the assets in the house including the house.

    I am outraged because why the hell is the Government taxing what my dad leaves me? If a parent works hard to leave their children something; such as a home, the Government has no right to tax it.



    If someones parents works extremely hard to provide their children with a house or other assets the Government has no right to tax it.

    I don't know if you realise this, but throughout this thread you have sounded exactly like the kind of upper class person that the third of voters see the conservatives as catering to and consisting of.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay Blinkbelle, so your argument is this.
    Because not all parents can provide such assets to their children, the ones that can should be heavily taxed.
    Well there is such a thing as having too much and I think you're overlooking the massive impact having little has on the potential of an individual to make use of the opportunities that life offers. If you are three times less likely to gain a single qualification if you live in Merthyr Tydfil (which is quite a poor town) than you are if you live in Monmouth (which is one of the more affluent) how is it that you are supposed to suddenly become financially successful and provide for your children in the same way that the likes of Fred Goodwin can? Child Poverty in this country has a considered cost to the treasury of £25 billion in lost GDP and that's not counting the social cost both to the individual and to society.

    How is that fair? Just because they have managed to be more successful financially doesn't mean it is right for you, the government or anyone to condemn them for it.
    I ask you, then, how is any of the above fair? Private property has led to massive inequality and ensured that there are social barriers to being a success financially. We have a group of people who have achieved and are now kicking away the ladders so that other people cannot and so yes I think it is entirely fair to take the excesses that people earn and to give it to the people who the least to ensure that we all propser together.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay Blinkbelle, so your argument is this.
    Because not all parents can provide such assets to their children, the ones that can should be heavily taxed.

    How is that fair? Just because they have managed to be more successful financially doesn't mean it is right for you, the government or anyone to condemn them for it.
    I think the point we're all trying to make is that we'd appreciate if we received ANY amount of money for inheritance. You don't. Like I said earlier, some people can't afford food and water to survive.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.