Turn on thread page Beta

Why You Should NOT Vote For The Liberal Democrats watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Howard)
    In other words a local income tax. Would it be collected, administered, and spent locally or would it all get sent to the Treasury for redistribution across the land?
    yes, i keep saying a local income tax. Thats what its actually called lol (ie its not that they are trying to disguise that or anything)
    To be kept locally. Basically it will be used for the same as council tax is now (ie locally). I think some areas will end up getting cash injected centrally to make up any short fall...which makes sense because a short fall indicates deprivation.
    You might not agree, but that depends if you take a liberal/socialist stance like me, or a more purist capitalist stance like americans (ie minimal tax, minimal services)
    J
    PS I also have a lot of time for some of the green parties policy. Namely renationalising the railways and underground.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Anyone with some sense can say exactly why the grading system of taxes exists, even in america where the taxes are far lower they still grade them.
    Equal tax for all? HA!
    income per week
    £100. Minus 21% = £79 left
    £200. Minus 21% = £158 left.
    £500. Minus 21% = £395 left.

    Now lets say breadline of £75 a week.
    = £4, £83 and £320 disposable income respectively.

    THAT is why we have graded tax system.
    Flat tax rate doesn't give negative incentive to do well. It simply allows for redistribution of wealth and a much less economically polar society.
    At the moment we have this on a naitonal scale, and then have many taxes which aren't done like this. Like VAT, council tax etc.
    WEll Lib Dems propose shedding council taxes and changing it to a local income tax to be put after the national income tax.
    THis will help >75% of households - the elderly and poorer homeowners especially.
    It will also help massively first time home buyers, which may well be needed to prevent the impending house market crash.
    Makes sense to me.
    J
    Except of course the folks earning $500 a week also have higher expenses. If you earn $100 a week you're likely to live in government subsidized housing, have free meal tickets for your kids at school, cliam this benefit/that benefit to make up the shortfall.

    If you earn $500 you're likely to have a fcukin great mortgage and a car loan to pay.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Howard)
    Except of course the folks earning $500 a week also have higher expenses. If you earn $100 a week you're likely to live in government subsidized housing, have free meal tickets for your kids at school, cliam this benefit/that benefit to make up the shortfall.

    If you earn $500 you're likely to have a fcukin great mortgage and a car loan to pay.
    Ah but thats where the disposable income comes into it. THey have higher costs because they choose to live better.
    I'm not saying we should tax them to hell, I mean when you look at it...

    £100. Minus 21% = £79 left
    £200. Minus 21% = £158 left.
    £500. Minus 21% = £395 left.
    £1000. Minus 21% = £790 left
    Now lets say breadline of £75 a week.
    = £4, £83 and £320 disposable income respectively.

    Goes to something more like...
    £4800pa tax free, £31000pa 21%, anymore at 40%.

    So it goes to roughly (im doing this in my head so i may be a little bit off)...
    £100 goes to £98 (not £79)
    £200 goes to £178 (not £158)
    £500 goes to £415 (not £395)
    £1000 goes to £750 (not £790)

    So you have to go quite high before it starts making a significant extra dent.
    Like i say, it levels it up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KidA)
    "And what if they are later proven innocent????"

    Think about this. In a recent case (i can't remeber the names of the poeple involved) a mother was convicted of killing her 3 babies, she claimed they all died of cot deaths.
    Her name is Trupti Patel and here's a link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/2983652.stm

    (Original post by KidA)
    Think about it, i could be you wrongly convicted.
    Which happened here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102288/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Which happened here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102288/
    And in the green mile.

    Theres also the fact that you just shouldn't kill people. I mean you can make their life rubbish, and ensure that they are never reliesed but killing people is just wrong. I mean, it basically makes the law as bad as the killer.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Her name is Trupti Patel and here's a link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/2983652.stm
    She was never convicted, but there were several people who were - Angel Cannings is one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr. Blazed)
    She was never convicted, but there were several people who were - Angel Cannings is one.
    thats who i was thinking of
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    someone here said that one prime cases a dealth penalty would be applied to was that of the mother killing her child

    well how do u know

    criminal convictions are made when judges or juries are sure of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" perhaps we should reserve the death penalty for those who are convicted 100% - that wont be a VASTTT number but still..

    i am not stating my opinion on the death penalty..simply playing devils advocate
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionel789)
    criminal convictions are made when judges or juries are sure of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" perhaps we should reserve the death penalty for those who are convicted 100% - that wont be a VASTTT number but still..
    That beyond all reasonable doubt is debatable. Someone can be convicted of murdering someone on the basis of a majority of 10 out of 12 jurors in England and Wales. Surely if there is some doubt to the defendent's guilt, there is no longer beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, you must acquit? It is also 8 out of 15 to convict in Scotland.

    And the burden is only up to the jury you might find, not the judge. He just deals with the evidence on admissability and so on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They'll be getting my vote for one reason.

    Change of Electoral System to a more proportional system, hopefully STV but most likely straight to PR. Once this is complete we can finally vote on party policies, without the notion that our vote will be lost somewhere within the FPTP mockery of a democracy we see today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acombfosho)
    They'll be getting my vote for one reason.

    Change of Electoral System to a more proportional system, hopefully STV but most likely straight to PR. Once this is complete we can finally vote on party policies, without the notion that our vote will be lost somewhere within the FPTP mockery of a democracy we see today.
    Yes, so many good parties lose out
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Acombfosho)
    They'll be getting my vote for one reason.

    Change of Electoral System to a more proportional system, hopefully STV but most likely straight to PR. Once this is complete we can finally vote on party policies, without the notion that our vote will be lost somewhere within the FPTP mockery of a democracy we see today.
    Can you explain please. (the abvs and general voting systems have escaped me for some time. i think i get proportional representation, but the others are over my head)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    actually FPTP should be given its credit

    it is a good system

    everyone is split up as you all know into areas. They can elect a representative to obviously represent them in the commons and to stand up for their best interests.
    Going to PR would result in this special relationship between constituent and MP being taken away and many though you may not notice it..find this connection and relationship very useful.

    Also FPTP usually though not always delivers a government with a sound majority. Proportional Representation more often leads to hung parliaments. FPTP thus ensures a decisive and competent government is formed rather than messy hung parliaments in which governments often have to be formed without a clear majority (and sometimes with no majority at all). Therefore, PR can lead to flimsy indecsive, fragile and split coalition governments attempt to govern the country.

    Finally, PR would allow small single issue and maybe reckless parties like the BNP to come into the commons. Many might say this is just democracy. However, as PR systems often result in coalition governments being formed this means that the major party within such a country would form a government , with parties who only received a fraction of the vote , to gain a majority in parliament. This would mean that people from smaller parties with a tiny fraction of the vote end up getting high senior ministerial positions and a government is formed which NO ONE wanted!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A majority government is not always ideal. If there is too a great lead of one party this could have adverse effects, the failure of Parliament to take the Government into account, sleaze on the majority party (why should they work so hard when they can afford not to as they won't lose as many seats easily?), the constituencies favour Labour - this is undemocratic, a connection can still result using STV or a list system, it's not always bad for coalitions to run the country many do this already, many countries use PR for Parliamentary seats (e.g. Republic of Ireland), it is also out of date. The over-worrying of the BNP gaining 1 seat under PR is absurd, SF are entitled to 4 seats in the Commons, but they are powerless as all the other parties will have 100s of seats.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think what you mean is a government with a massive majority is NEVER ideal because it can steam role through things in parliament at great ease and is much more carefree about perhaps upsetting people and defying views from people and opposing benches.

    However, you are suggesting a government without a majority! - so you essentially want a hung parliament with what some might describe as an illegitimate government which as a result of there being no majority essentially makes little progress and gets no where.

    also you did not address any of the other points I made in favour of FPTP.

    the over worrying bit about the BNP is not overworrying at all. in 1926 the Nazis had just 2.6% of the vote: 12 seats. In 1930 they become the largest party in Germany. and only because the president - Hindenbury would not let them they did not form any government until 1933. Having even one seat would give the BNP a lot more publicity and pump in lots of money towards that party.

    As for sleeze I take your point that a government with a massive majority could become sleezy or as I said above steam roll things through parliament but I think this applied to governments with large majorities..not normal majorities - normal majorities allow a government to act decisively and competently but still puts pressure on them to perform well. However, we could do other things like separate the executive from the legislature to ensure a more effective check and balance mechanism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionel789)
    However, you are suggesting a government without a majority!
    I meant an excessive majorty, which usually occurs under the FPTP system since it exaggerates the winners lead. Most noticable in recent years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionel789)
    also you did not address any of the other points I made in favour of FPTP.
    Didn't know I was obliged to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You arent but it shows you only reply to the things you can (though not convincingly :P) maybe showing all my other points are right
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionel789)
    You arent but it shows you only reply to the things you can (though not convincingly :P) maybe showing all my other points are right
    I do as I feel and it doesn't show anything, only suggests. You have failed to respond to my comment about corporate manslaughter, which, according to you shows you only reply to the things you can (though not convincingly :P) maybe showing all my other points are right... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All i can say is vote Lib Dem bcos Charles Kennedy = a nice bloke. I did work experience with him in his private office & he's a v nice guy, nicer than Howard or Blair.

    Plus looking at the various policies of the three major parties i'd say tha Lib Dem, followed by Conservatives = best.

    Moo
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.