Quake3World

Then do what any Tory would do, go self employed and cook your books

What a pathetic country...

Agree with DB here. Although I fear a Tory win, with a gun to my head, I'd probably vote for them out of the available choices. I could never vote for a labour government at this rate, they represent me way less than Tories do. But on the other hand, as a human being, Dave's utter lack of personal political policy makes me despise him. I'd like to see a Tory government with an actual conservative in power.

scared? wrote:What a pathetic country...

It's a pathetic world. No different to America. One party represents big banking, the other big business.

syp0s wrote:Agree with DB here. Although I fear a Tory win, with a gun to my head, I'd probably vote for them out of the available choices. I could never vote for a labour government at this rate, they represent me way less than Tories do. But on the other hand, as a human being, Dave's utter lack of personal political policy makes me despise him. I'd like to see a Tory government with an actual conservative in power.

Why ?, out of curiosoty, I don't trust either but all things being equal Ed wants to go after big business and banks instead of welfare reforms, service sector cuts and re jig the tax bands for the people more in need, cut the cost of education, zero hr contracts, address lower pay to migrants. He actually wants to address the cost of living, end to austerity, this Labour also stopped the strikes against Syria when to Tories wanted to go in head 1st with the yanks and he is for local governments, none of these things are mentioned by that other cunt. When becoming leader of the labour party he also sought support from the Unions rather than big business and bankers and is committed to the EU.

This is all words I know (except the strikes against Syria) but I tend to lean more to the left anyway and I don't for 1 second think Ed will manage to do all the things he said (splitting the banks and devolution of powers for example, no chance), Trident will also still exist, immigration will probaly carrying on shifting to the right and civil liberties will continue to diminish but Labour is at the very least more left when compared to the Tories

Well, yeah, I don't really want him to go after big business or banks. Without them, the wealth generation will be zero.

You hit the nail on the head when you say it's all words. No government goes in thinking, "You know what, let's make everyone's lives more expensive and miserable".

It's a fact of life that a capitalist economy needs to constantly grow. It can't grow infinitely, so occasionally, it has to implode and reset.

Also, another point which I think a lot of people don't realise is that the world is run by people born during the ultimate left wing era. People born in the 50s and 60s. Lefties are in control of most of the media and most of the policy making. The problem is that left wing economic ideals don't generate wealth. Left wing people get in charge and realise that left wing policies create fuck all money.

Immigration will never drop, bankers will never be reigned in, and big business will continue to dictate policy. It's the only way to generate billions of pounds a day needed to run an entire country. Ed would be in power, and after all his silly promises, he's realise that it all requires money. So he's cut this, and he'd cut that, and he'd be down about a trillion quid a year, and he'd have to find it from somewhere, so then come more cuts to shore it up.

If you want to scale a model to get a grasp of how it works, imagine if McDonald's suddenly decided tomorrow that all of their food was going to be organic, free range, and well cared for. Do you still think it would produce the same amount of burgers? Of course not. It's a dirty world, and dirty worlds require dirty economic policies. Some people get pushed up against a wall, but those smart enough work with the system and live a good life.

I shot a hedge fund manager for a money mag the other day, and he was in the studio for a few hours, and we got to talking about how the system works. He explained that Britain is essentially perpetually circling the toilet, near bankruptcy. The government eases the restrictions on bankers, because they can then make huge, gigantic gambles with things like pension funds. That's it, that's just the system. Can't change it, he said. The government has to figure out ways to make it easier for people to give them money. Nothing more to it. Can't do that by being nice to people who don't give very much. I pay about 10% tax, but I'm a high earner, so while that may not seem like much, it's as much, or more than anyone earning 50k or less. So I get looked after. It's the only way it can work.

Which is why I don't think he can live up to expectation (reguarding banks and big business) but it's better than the free reign that David is offering ?, as I was talking to DB, the wealth generation / growth at the moment is for the rich only and large corporations (GDP capita / person is flat). The Tories think this is ok.

I get the economy grows beyond its means, that's just trading in a bubble which why I think it would have happened and recovered regardless of who was in power, the difference being I would have preffered a stimulus rather than austerity.

Your point about lefties becoming righties n all, you're right, it's why Labour is (or tries to sound like) the left of the right side, if that makes sense ?. You can't make money being a socialist, so those with money will eventually trump you.

The way I see it n all is theres 2 ways of looking after the economy, you give big corps the free reign to make those gambles but on the flipside you support the workforce that will re circulate that money back into the economy, feeding it back into big business. Wether this is through tax breaks, welfare, service sector etc etc that will also grow industries on the way. It's also worth remembering that relaxing restrictions on financial institutions is what created the hole for the economy to fall into in the 1st place, something that the Tories have been beating Labour with ever since and explains why a hedge fund manager would support this approach. America (I believe but I could be wrong) done both and check out the difference -

[lvlshot]https://texasfinancial.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/debt-to-gdp-ratio-uk-us.jpg[/lvlshot]

Britian circling the bankruptcy drain n all, I think we're all mostly (capitalist countries) in the same boat in that reguard ?, compared to the 1950s/60s our debt is tiny, almost nothing and seems to be remedied by boosting GDP. I've heard it mentioned before and I'm really not sure what to make of it tho.

[lvlshot]http://www.admiralpr.com/wp-content/uploads/UK-debt-since-1945.bmp[/lvlshot]

This is a time when everything was owned by the government and the NHS was founded n all. It's not good don't get me wrong, the 50s were meant to be atrocious, but in comparison

I get taxed 20%ish avg on sub 50k n all :/, how'd you do that ?

syp0s wrote:I pay about 10% tax, but I'm a high earner, so while that may not seem like much, it's as much, or more than anyone earning 50k or less. So I get looked after. It's the only way it can work.

are you still quoting the hedge fund manager here, or is it you who's the tax dodger?

seremtan wrote:
are you still quoting the hedge fund manager here, or is it you who's the tax dodger?

OR IS IT YOUUUUU WHO IS THE TAX DODGER!! *waves finger, buys Guardian newspaper*

I just run a business and employ a decent accountant, which is what everyone would do in the same position.

losCHUNK wrote:Which is why I don't think he can live up to expectation (reguarding banks and big business) but it's better than the free reign that David is offering ?, as I was talking to DB, the wealth generation / growth at the moment is for the rich only and large corporations (GDP capita / person is flat). The Tories think this is ok.

I get the economy grows beyond its means, that's just trading in a bubble which why I think it would have happened and recovered regardless of who was in power, the difference being I would have preffered a stimulus rather than austerity.

Your point about lefties becoming righties n all, you're right, it's why Labour is (or tries to sound like) the left of the right side, if that makes sense ?. You can't make money being a socialist, so those with money will eventually trump you.

The way I see it n all is theres 2 ways of looking after the economy, you give big corps the free reign to make those gambles but on the flipside you support the workforce that will re circulate that money back into the economy, feeding it back into big business. Wether this is through tax breaks, welfare, service sector etc etc that will also grow industries on the way. It's also worth remembering that relaxing restrictions on financial institutions is what created the hole for the economy to fall into in the 1st place, something that the Tories have been beating Labour with ever since and explains why a hedge fund manager would support this approach. America (I believe but I could be wrong) done both and check out the difference -

Britian circling the bankruptcy drain n all, I think we're all mostly (capitalist countries) in the same boat in that reguard ?, compared to the 1950s/60s our debt is tiny, almost nothing and seems to be remedied by boosting GDP. I've heard it mentioned before and I'm really not sure what to make of it tho.

This is a time when everything was owned by the government and the NHS was founded n all. It's not good don't get me wrong, the 50s were meant to be atrocious, but in comparison

OK, so how does wealth generation work for the non-rich? Exactly how do you make everyone wealthy? When you do that, the demand for everything rises, which pushes costs up. All you do is raise the plateau. That's my point. There's an economic system in place that doesn't allow everyone to be wealthy. Nobody can get in power and make it better for everyone, because nobody campaigning is saying, "we are going to scrap the whole system". It's never been any different, there's just a lot of people moaning, because the rich are getting richer - but that's to be expected when there are emerging markets - people with money to invest will make a profit. Same thing happened during the industrial revolution. Joe Average doesn't have 16 billion to buy Whatsapp, but Facebook does, so the board of execs on Facebook see a share price increase, and everyone with shares gets richer. People with less money have less opportunity to speculate. That's not rich people's problem, and no rich person is paying lobby groups to make people's lives harder.

The Tories are the original red tape cutters - Labour don't hold a candle to what the Tories did during the 80s. Which is my point - they're all the same.

Yes, all countries are in the same point, which reinforces my point - you can't change one and expect to engage. Countries requires billions a day to operate, it only takes a few days for EVERYTHING to fall to pieces.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that voting makes a difference to how the country is run. If you want a change, vote UKIP or the Greens. The country will temporarily change, go to shit, and then back to normal again when they realise that shit's the way it is for a reason.

losCHUNK wrote: I get taxed 20%ish avg on sub 50k n all :/, how'd you do that ?

I'm just self employed; there's a lot of tax breaks you can take advantage of when you own companies, and if you have a decent accountant, he helps you to order your finances so that you pay the minimum amount of tax legally required. Nothing special, it's all available on the HMRC website, but to take care of it yourself would be like having another full time job - so you pay someone to do it for you.

losCHUNK wrote:Then do what any Tory would do, go self employed and cook your books

Stimulus is nothing new or novel either, its got us out the shit before under labour and creates a better environment for business. It's widely accepted, especially in yanks and that austerity didnt work.

Exactly - hence why I'm a bit confused about you making a distinction between two essentially identical parties.

Well Labour have pledged more funding whilst the Tories are promising more restrictions ?

The Conservative Party are not saying, "we promise more restrictions". Both of them will deliver more restrictions, because they can't get funding from thin air. There's a finite amount of money available, and the only way to get more from one thing is to take it from another. That's a basic law of thermodynamics and economics.

why did he click?

syp0s wrote:The Conservative Party are not saying, "we promise more restrictions". Both of them will deliver more restrictions, because they can't get funding from thin air. There's a finite amount of money available, and the only way to get more from one thing is to take it from another. That's a basic law of thermodynamics and economics.

This is what I've been saying, Tory funds will come from welfare, the rich getting a free ride n all that I was saying, getting richer in this climate whilst everyone is still struggling / stagnating, they've promised to protect big business and have promised more of the same, this is a recovery for the rich and no one else. As you said money has to come from somewhere and there's only one place left that it will come from, hence more restrictions. Ed wants the rich (banks, big business, high earners) to finally start putting back into the economy and growing it properly instead of having a lower paid workforce and higher cost to living. A good measure of health for the economy is GDP per capita and as I had mentioned that has stagnated since 2007.

nearly 2k of my monthly wage is tax. fuck giving the morons anymore thanks.

[Click LIKE & SHARE]

well the lower band would be around 37k if it's anything like the last government so you'd a little better off if you're around 43k after including personal allowance, or slightly better / the same after that. You're screwed on anything over 150k.

So you're around like what ?, 90k ?, don't worry.

Lol poor ppl... ...

lol

The pre-election pledges that the Tories are trying to wipe from the internet

"No frontline cuts", "no top-down NHS reorganisations", "no VAT rise" - why the Conservatives are trying to erase all pre-May 2010 speeches and press releases from the internet.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... e-internet

vote potato!

unavoidable in the UK i'm afraid

potatoes voting as well it would seem

how else would we end up with someone like Stephen Har-, uh, I mean David Cameron

seremtan wrote:how else would we end up with someone like Stephen Har-, uh, I mean David Cameron

You remember when you said to replace the house of lords with a US style senate for different regions in the UK ?, did you think that up ?, because it's in Labours manifesto.