If You Were In The Uk Electorate

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

I wish I had paid lots of income tax over the years. I wish I had paid obscene amounts of income tax - because that means I would have earned obscene amounts of money.

 

The more tax you pay, the better off you are. Makes sense.

 

People who pay lots of tax - they're not poor are they? They tend to live in big expensive houses.

 

 

And then they die.

[Declan]

Declan should vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Labour

 

 

Your actual outcome:

 

 

      Labour 4

Conservative -35     

      Liberal Democrat 48

      UK Independence Party 2

      Green 25

 

Little surprised by that.

 

What Rog fails to grasp is that for most people who are considering voting for the Lib Dems the awful Bleah is a much better proposition than Howard.

[Rog]

Because you have been fortunate enough to be able to pay that money, those who haven't should not be disadvantaged in old age purely because you feel you should get more money out because you put more money in. We live in a welfare state and that is not how it works, get used to it.

 

The very word “fortunate” implies a degree of luck. It fails to take account of the sheer hard work and effort, risk taking, and hardship involved. As regards a welfare state, we do not live in a welfare state. We live in a nanny state that is cynically manipulated by the ideologically motivated to promote their own agendas using taxation and handouts to further their aims

 

Private medical insurance is taken on your own perogative, why should the govt. pay for you to have superior service, if you want it you pay. Sounds fair to me.

 

Not just at ones own prerogative but also at ones own costs. There is no question of the Government paying for me to have a superior service but there is a dam fine question why I should have to pay tax on money that has the effect of reducing my dependence on Government provided facilities so leaving them open to others.

 

Whats wrong with a local income tax? That way you pay according to your means rather than the price of your house...and those "several adults" living in the council house will each pay individually. That's a Lib-Dem policy that is!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Local income tax is open ended. The more a person earns, the more they pay. Conversely the less they earn the less they pay.

 

Ironically the more a person earns the less call he is likely to actually make on local services as the person is more likely to not have kids attending school and so forth. What’s more there would need to be yet MORE government beurocrats ‘managing’ the collection and more significantly the distribution of the monies received. We need FEWER civil servants, not more.

 

The Community Charge was the only really fair means of local taxation. It needed some fine tuning to cater for the less well off but in essence it was absolutely the right way to impose a tax for local services.

 

Tax PEOPLE at a flat rate, discount the rate for those in genuine need, but leave income out of it. Taxing income is the politics of envy as much as taxing people on the value of their property. In short, assist those at the low end by all means, but do not penalise those at the upper end.

 

The main reason that the Community Charge was so hated by Labour was that it showed up the profligate labour councils for what they were.

 

It also made EVERYBODY make at least a contribution to the local costs. A local Income tax would mean that those not in work would not have an income and so would not pay anything. As a result human nature being what it is they would not have any ‘buy in’ to decent local government. It would also act as yet further disincentive for the workshy to get of their fat lazy backsides and get a job.

[Rog]

I have paid a fortune into the Treasury over the years. Why therefore should I not get a higher pension than someone who has paid very little?

Because consecutive governments have made the moral decision on your behalf to look after certain sections of society with blanket policies?

‘Looking after’ is one thing and something that I have not a problem with. Where I do have a problem is where the provisions of the necessities of life are extended to include by tax funded social engineering that the provision of handouts to people in order that they enjoy a standard of living that is beyond that which they are capable of providing by their own efforts or abilities.

 

A welfare sate is one thing, a nanny state is another thing entirely.

 

Old labour were into organised theft by the re-distribution of inherited wealth. NuLabour are into organised theft by the redistribution of earnings using their tax and spending programs.

 

I'm not financial inclined, so forgive my ignorence. Most of the following is presented as questions...

 

The systems says that all pensioners will receive a share of the funds irrespective of input.

 

The higher earners will contribute more during their life so should they receive more from the fund?

All pensioners receive the amount of state retirement pension that their contributions entitle them to. There is then a ‘top up’ for those with no other income and no savings that take the effective income to a very comfortable level.

 

A better solution would be that all pensioners receive the same pension that was itself set at a living level and that those who had for example been paying higher rate taxes should have a top up to reflect their contribution over the years. SERPS went some way to provide this.

 

There are threshold below which no tax is paid, why isn't there a threshold above which contributions are static?

 

A millionaire should be able to keep more of their money, but they should also be happy to forfeight an automatic 'right' to Social Security benefits if they are not needed.

They do now. The universal benefits are VERY few on the ground and really are just Child Benefit and free treatment under the NHS.

 

Personally I would dearly like to see ALL ‘social payments’ such as ‘Income Support’ and ESPECILLY ‘Family Income Supplement’ phased out.

 

If a job is worth doing then it is worth paying the wage to have it done. Market forces would soon result in wages rising and costs falling where they are created rather than being shuffled around by an army of beurocrats using various forms of taxation and if a family ate on a low income then basically tough. Either let them do something about it or shut up and get on with it. Only provide sufficient to allow shelter, warmth, clothing, and food. Nothing else.

 

In my opinion what is needed is massively reduced ‘Government’.

 

Reduced involvement in peoples lives, reduced civil service numbers, reduced hand-outs of tax payers money, in essence leave people to sink or swim and provide only a safety net to save anyone from drowning.

 

I realise of course the real answer lies somewhere between what I personally would like to see, and the world of the socialist. Right now with NuLabour and their massive parliamentary majority and their social engineering control freak ethos we face a horrible and sick situation. I look forward to a Conservative government – but with a small majority only in order to reign in the more extreme

[Slim]

http://whoshouldyouvotefor.com

[Rog]

Labour -4

Conservative 32

Liberal Democrat -46

UK Independence Party -5

Green -7

 

 

You should vote: Conservative

The Conservative Party is strongly against joining the Euro and against greater use of taxation to fund public services. The party broadly supported the Iraq war and backs greater policing and ID cards. The Tories are against increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation, and have committed to abolishing university tuition fees. They support 'virtual vouchers' for private education.

 

As I expected.

[Slim]

I got lib dem bizzarely, mainly for my anti smoking and road tax stuff.

[ans]

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

 

 

Your actual outcome:

 

 

Labour -28

Conservative -15

Liberal Democrat 22

UK Independence Party 2

Green 21

 

 

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

 

Quite surprised at that. Would have liked to see a more detailed breakdown of my answers to see what put me in that range.

[Jonty]

Your expected outcome:

Labour

 

 

Your actual outcome:

 

 

Labour -8

Conservative -63

Liberal Democrat 68

UK Independence Party -32

Green -3

 

 

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

 

 

 

Charlie, you're all mine!

[theintelligentthug]

doesn't the IOM have a totally independent government? pardon my ignorance, i really have no idea, as im from sunny Preston, England and they breed them 'big and dumb' here.

 

just wondering how british politics would/could affect you in the IOM, if at all?

[The Old Git]

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

 

Your actual outcome:

 

Labour -30

Conservative 20

Liberal Democrat -22

UK Independence Party 26

Green 10

 

Also surprised, not at the Labour or Lib Dem scores, but for the UK Imdependence party score. Perhaps I should join Mec vannin

[The Old Git]

doesn't the IOM have a totally independent government?

 

In theory

 

just wondering how british politics would/could affect you in the IOM, if at all?

 

We share the same currecy, UK inflation has an effect on us, we have commom customs agreement so increases in duty on fuel, etc., all effect us

[The Old Git]

I think it was previously posted in on of the previous forums but http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is also worth a look

[Satan]

http://whoshouldyouvotefor.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That should be

http://forwhomyoushouldvote.com

 

Idiots!

[theintelligentthug]

ahhh.. ok. just wondered.