Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:10 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Fook all would have happened. Everyone knows that if Labour were in the economy would be tickety boo, we would have near full employment and the masses would have bags of cash to p155 up the wall at the boozer and bookies every weekend.

Are you sulking now ?

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:10 pm  

Him wrote:

Trying to get away without paying the proper fare? Then he'd be a pillock too.

It would seem that this is not the first time that this has happened with Osborne. There are stories doing the rounds that he had similar problems (but with no journalist nearby) in May, when the conductor refused to let him simply stay in first without paying.

I can't remember which tabloid had the story yesterday, but will try to find it.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:12 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Fook all would have happened. Everyone knows that if Labour were in the economy would be tickety boo, we would have near full employment and the masses would have bags of cash to p155 up the wall at the boozer and bookies every weekend.

Nope. Because the banks screwed the economy. So we would still struggle. But probably wouldn't have such unemployment, especially in poorer areas. Probably wouldn't have such privatisation of the NHS, police and education. And probably wouldn't be in recession. But hey, as long as we're all in it together then I'm sure the burden will fall fairly across the country and not on the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. No, really.
But nice diversion away from Osborne making a fool of himself.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:30 pm  

Found a report. I had thought it was the Mirror had picked it up – and it had – but decided instead to link to the story a hard left publication.

Found a report. I had thought it was the Mirror had picked it up – and it had – but decided instead to link to the story a hard left publication.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:35 pm  

Him wrote:

But hey, as long as we're all in it together then I'm sure the burden will fall fairly across the country and not on the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. No, really.
But nice diversion away from Osborne making a fool of himself.

Depends on your definition of fair.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is the less well off are not being asked to pull their weight.

After tax-credits, (but not housing benefit) are taken into account, a married couple with one earner and 2 children need to earn £22,000 before any net contribution to income taxes is demanded. For a family with 2 earners, the figure is £25,000.

Around 50% of households in the UK make no net contribution to the exchequer whatsoever.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:40 pm  

... it's a myth that, for the first time, Save the Children is spending money on helping UK children, while food banks are on the rise.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:22 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Depends on your definition of fair.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is the less well off are not being asked to pull their weight.

After tax-credits, (but not housing benefit) are taken into account, a married couple with one earner and 2 children need to earn £22,000 before any net contribution to income taxes is demanded. For a family with 2 earners, the figure is £25,000.

Around 50% of households in the UK make no net contribution to the exchequer whatsoever.

I assume you're referring to the piece "researched" by the Centre for Policy Studies that concludes that 53.4% of households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11.

A couple of minor little issues:
The CPS is a Tory think-tank setup by Thatcher
In their research, the term "benefits" includes such things as NHS care and education in their calculations.

But again, nice attempt at diverting away from Osborne looking like a fool.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:44 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Depends on your definition of fair.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is the less well off are not being asked to pull their weight.

After tax-credits, (but not housing benefit) are taken into account, a married couple with one earner and 2 children need to earn £22,000 before any net contribution to income taxes is demanded. For a family with 2 earners, the figure is £25,000.

Around 50% of households in the UK make no net contribution to the exchequer whatsoever.

The rich pay enough. Tax them any more and you will get what is happening in France, all the rich people leaving / wanting to leave.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:46 pm  

Him wrote:

Nope. Because the banks screwed the economy. So we would still struggle. But probably wouldn't have such unemployment, especially in poorer areas. Probably wouldn't have such privatisation of the NHS, police and education. And probably wouldn't be in recession. But hey, as long as we're all in it together then I'm sure the burden will fall fairly across the country and not on the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. No, really.
But nice diversion away from Osborne making a fool of himself.

your use of the word 'probably' carries about as much weight as 'a bloke in the pub told me player x is signing for team y'...

the level of privatisation of the nhs, police and education would be exactly the same as it is now.

as for unemployment, in labour's recession (that was nothing to do with them obviously) it jumped 25% ish, in the tories recession (which is most certainly their fault) it's stayed pretty static, perhaps up slightly, but now falling (although they're clearly fudging the figures, probably even shooting claimants).

the burden clearly doesn't fall fairly as according to a bbc article;

Again, according to the wealth of HMRC figures on the topic, the top 1% of all income taxpayers contributed a whopping 27% of all income tax that year.
By contrast, the bottom 50% of income taxpayers paid just over 11% of income tax

so, lets have some numbers, how much should the top 1% pay and the bottom 50% while we're at it.

Re: George Osbourne should have been a "pleb" : Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:04 pm  

Mintball wrote: ... it's a myth that, for the first time, Save the Children is spending money on helping UK children, good for them, following in the footsteps of the nspcc and barnardos. http://order-order.com/2012/09/05/partisan-charity-attack-fronted-by-brown-spin-doctor-justin-forysths-child-poverty-ruse-unravels/ while food banks are on the rise. foodbanks are a fantastic idea, vouchers for food? far better than handing over cold hard cash as they can't be exchanged for fags and scratchcards. anyway, they'll be a thing of the past soon when the home insulation army arrive.

Mintball wrote: ... it's a myth that, for the first time, Save the Children is spending money on helping UK children, good for them, following in the footsteps of the nspcc and barnardos. http://order-order.com/2012/09/05/partisan-charity-attack-fronted-by-brown-spin-doctor-justin-forysths-child-poverty-ruse-unravels/ while food banks are on the rise. foodbanks are a fantastic idea, vouchers for food? far better than handing over cold hard cash as they can't be exchanged for fags and scratchcards. anyway, they'll be a thing of the past soon when the home insulation army arrive.