Donate SIGN UP

The politics of spite?

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 11:24 Fri 18th Dec 2009 | News
10 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../business/8411984.stm
back to the good old days of labour? The trouble is that the "rich" on any scale are rare so the amount rasied even at 95% as in old labour days, is not much in the scheme of things, so what is termed "rich" pretty quickly becomes anyone earning £50k or so. Effort is surely better spent in reducing the colossal Public sector.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Are you rich or do you just Worship the rich like a good Tory ?
And the trouble with reducing the public sector is that you lose their tax contributions and pay them social security and other benefits. So you don't save half as much as the headline figure by the time you include the under the table costs

It's not easy - everybody has to take a share of the pain - especially the rich as they benefitted so much more from the good times.
//Are you rich or do you just Worship the rich like a good Tory ?// - no spite there then eh?
Isn't the big flaw with your plan that, the extra 2 - 3 million people on unemployment Benefit will have to be paid for by a smaller and smaller workforce, so they will inevitably pay more and more.

Keeping people in jobs is the best way to stave off a long recession.
Here's a thought - If it's cheaper for the state to employ people than support them on benefits, why don't we employ all the people currently on benefits? Call them 'community outreach workers' , Duties - 'staying at home doing exactly what you do at the moment', salary - same as what you currently claim on benefits but with 30% taken back in taxes. Genius, if I say so myself.
Question Author
yes I am very rich and would like to keep most of it, so I don't want a load of lefties giving my money to poor people. Well spotted Brionon, you spotted that eh?
Fair do's. And that's why you should vote Conservative.

At least you're honest about it. Most aren't!

:-)
"And that's why you should vote Conservative"
I think that's a very sad refelection on what has happened to the concept of democracy over the last 50 years.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote Conservative, but the orginal concept of a democracy was a society in which people voted for what they thought was right, fair, just, and best for the country and its people. Nowadays, people vote for what they imagine to be their own short-term interests.
I didn't say it was cheaper did I ludwig?

Please don't put words in my mouth!

I said that you got back much smaller amounts of savings than it appeared - it's false accounting - you claim to save x Billion by Whitehall cuts but in reality you bump up social security payments and lose on taxes.

Great for politicians who like to be seen wielding the axe not so good in reality.
Putting people on the dole is not as expensive as you might think Jake. All the money gets spent on booze, fags and lottery cards, so most it comes back as tax anyway.

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Do you know the answer?

The politics of spite?

Answer Question >>