Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

64% of the UK did not want David Cameron as priminister Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Did you protest when he was Labours' ally? Or when Labour introduced fees and then proceeded to triple them? You are crying crocodile tears, you are alarmed at the result, although if it was a Labour win, you wouldn't dare make such a stupid thread like this. You are fooling no-one.
    In thine discourse I find invaluable truth and pleasure, for which I applaud thee in admiration and respect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    You know what would also save a lot of money? Asking the filthy rich bankers that greatly influenced an economic crisis to cover the cost of their crimes and mistakes. Surely a more cost effective method than taking away young Brian's Disability Living Allowance.
    'The bankers are the reason my life sucks' - butthurt lefties
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    You know what would also save a lot of money? Asking the filthy rich bankers that greatly influenced an economic crisis to cover the cost of their crimes and mistakes. Surely a more cost effective method than taking away young Brian's Disability Living Allowance.
    so you're telling me that bankers should be taxed more because they have a good job, and earn money because of their hard work? i don't see the logic...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    'The bankers are the reason my life sucks' - butthurt lefties
    Just concerned about the no-hopers on the Blackburn estates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with working by percentages is how would MPs be elected? Because to accommodate the % of votes for minorities some constituencies would end up with an MP representing their area that they didn't even vote for.

    Also I believe (I may be wrong) that one of Cameron's first plans is to alter the system so that the constituencies all contain roughly the same number of people to make it fairer, as at the moment they are all different sizes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathsmorgs)
    so you're telling me that bankers should be taxed more because they have a good job, and earn money because of their hard work? i don't see the logic...
    If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

    But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

    But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.
    With all due respect you just seem like another left wing person with weak justifacations
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Still 36% should be a mandate to do whatever you want unchallanged.....
    This situation is nothing new. The people rejected AV in the referendum a couple of years ago, remember?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    That is the way our system works unfortunately. Get involved with the electoral reform society if you want to change it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    This situation is nothing new. The people rejected AV in the referendum a couple of years ago, remember?
    AV was kinda weird though and not many countries use it.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10224354.html

    60% of people want it now and the public is more aware of PR and it is already partially in use in scotland for Holyrood elections.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

    But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.
    ROFL

    What a simpleton view.

    The economic crash was caused by "bankers" (very vague)? Perhaps you can make a case for that.

    UK's economic problems caused by "bankers"? Judging by the ability of other countries to grow compared to us, no, no it wasn't. Not a single banker asked the UK to run a DEFICIT during PROSPERITY while our debt was more than HALF of our GDP, though. But I don't expect Labour to use the part of the brain that is called ... the brain, anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosferatu)
    If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

    But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.
    I bet a lot of people with that mind set who complain about the £12bn welfare cuts also get angry at Benefit Street when it is on the TV.

    I agree that the ultra wealthy should get taxed a little more. They don't need that extra Ferrari. However I also believe that the welfare system is extremely flawed and needs a complete re haul. And I like the fact that the conservatives are making changes to that, such as not allowing new immigrants to claim until they have lived in the country 3 months. What I don't like is the idea of bedroom tax, where austerity is placed on pensioners or people receiving disability allowance just because they have an extra bedroom.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keds1)

    I agree that the ultra wealthy should get taxed a little more. They don't need that extra Ferrari.
    The ultra wealthy don't need your country either. As evidenced by the revenue freefall in France after top-rate tax hike.

    Why commit mistakes that were literally committed .. a year ago? Why is it that the electorate has such a short memory and undeveloped economic understanding?

    "tax the rich" or "print more money" is simply the dumbest cases for economic growth or recovery from a recession I've ever heard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Smurf)
    Labour won a majority in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote. Didn't hear any left wing hypocrites crying about how un-democratic it was then.
    Great comment, this is probably the best comment you have ever made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    The ultra wealthy don't need your country either. As evidenced by the revenue freefall in France after top-rate tax hike.

    Why commit mistakes that were literally committed .. a year ago? Why is it that the electorate has such a short memory and undeveloped economic understanding?

    "tax the rich" or "print more money" is simply the dumbest cases for economic growth or recovery from a recession I've ever heard.
    Rather than using such snotty language, why not give an example? I understand the rich could just leave. I am not talking heavy taxes as Labour want to impose.

    I understand both sides of the spectrum. I am from a rather wealthy family, and I was educated at a public school. My family are Tory voters. However my mother has MS and a couple of years ago became completely unable to work. This she hates - and still goes out to volunteer twice a week. However now she is what the OP would consider "vulnerable" and now faces disability allowance cuts and pays bedroom tax, unable to downsize further than she already has because I would have nowhere to sleep when I come back to visit from university.

    I don't know about you but I am sure the wealthier among us would be open to a very slight tax rise to protect the vulnerable and elderly.

    EDIT: And I suppose my mother is lucky, born into a rich family who can also help her. What about disabled people who do not have that luxury? It is just an acknowledgement that although the Tory government may be better for the economy, some people will be hit hard these next 5 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keds1)
    Rather than using such snotty language, why not give an example? I understand the rich could just leave. I am not talking heavy taxes as Labour want to impose.

    I understand both sides of the spectrum. I am from a rather wealthy family, and I was educated at a public school. My family are Tory voters. However my mother has MS and a couple of years ago became completely unable to work. This she hates - and still goes out to volunteer twice a week. However now she is what the OP would consider "vulnerable" and now faces disability allowance cuts and pays bedroom tax, unable to downsize further than she already has because I would have nowhere to sleep when I come back to visit from university.

    I don't know about you but I am sure the wealthier among us would be open to a very slight tax rise to protect the vulnerable and elderly.
    The incidence of taxation is and always has been a bigger burden on the wealthiest than on the poorest. The problem here is the usage of emotion in economics. When you have a country which offers a 40% tax rate and a country which offers a 41% tax rate and you're a billionaire, it's very unlikely you'd choose the 41%. To you it may seem that 1% is a very minimal and socially just value, to someone who earns a billion per year, the $10m is not a pram toy.

    The economy doesn't work when it is based on emotion. I'm putting a case forward that exemplifies the disincentive for the wealthiest to remain in a nation with high taxes. The concept of raising taxes ipso facto already signals to the rich of a possible tax hike in the future even higher. It's a momentum thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    The incidence of taxation is and always has been a bigger burden on the wealthiest than on the poorest. The problem here is the usage of emotion in economics. When you have a country which offers a 40% tax rate and a country which offers a 41% tax rate and you're a billionaire, it's very unlikely you'd choose the 41%. To you it may seem that 1% is a very minimal and socially just value, to someone who earns a billion per year, the $10m is not a pram toy.

    The economy doesn't work when it is based on emotion. I'm putting a case forward that exemplifies the disincentive for the wealthiest to remain in a nation with high taxes. The concept of raising taxes ipso facto already signals to the rich of a possible tax hike in the future even higher. It's a momentum thing.
    I understand. However you need to understand that the economy is not the only priority for the government. Both wealthy and non-wealthy people rely on the NHS and other public services. A balance must be struck.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keds1)
    I understand. However you need to understand that the economy is not the only priority for the government. Both wealthy and non-wealthy people rely on the NHS and other public services. A balance must be struck.
    That's the problem.

    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. — Thomas Sowell
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    That's the problem.

    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. — Thomas Sowell
    I'm going to take a random guess and say you're a history student or a politics student.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Neither.

    Not a degree student either.

    Economics, Accounting & Finance, Business, Law on AS-level.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: May 22, 2015
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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