Off Topic Why you MUST vote Tory!

It's absolutely ticketty-boo old bean. How is the old turpentine substitute over in Chinatown? I guess it's still packing a punch because I detect a vague air of ratarseification in your latest missives.

 

I didn't know that cider went out of date.

 

I don't agree with the right to buy. I especially don't agree with the right to buy at a discount. I don't see how it can be fair to have two people working side by side living next door to each other one in the private sector and one in social housing where the person benefitting from social housing has their discounted home purchase subsidised by the taxes of the person in the private sector who cannot afford to buy their own home.

The RTB and the so-called bedroom tax are entirely different things and I am surprised that one as politically astute as you has conflated them. The RTB takes properties out of the social housing system at a discounted rate and so effectively subsidises people in social housing getting on to the property ladder. Good for them but less good for the next family in line looking to get a social house. The bedroom tax is a way - OK a somewhat ham-fisted all stick and no carrot sort of a way - of reallocating social housing in the most efficient manner thereby helping the families waiting for appropriate housing.

People seem to be under the impression that social housing is there to give tenants houses for life. This is not and should not be the case. The point of social housing is to help those unable to either buy a house or rent privately and in my opinion should be allocated on a needs basis. I am sorry if an elderly couple are forced out of the house they brought their children up in or a newly single parent moves out after a family break up but the houses are not theirs - they belong to the state (or the Social Housing Trust anyway) and are for the benefit of all who need them. It may sound harsh but to my mind people kicking up a fuss about the bedroom tax are effectively supporting the housing equivalent of bed blockers. there will always be some cases that need individual thought and a more common sense approach like the case of people who need carers to stay over but in the majority of cases the housing stock should be allocated in the fairest possible manner.

On your addendum on Council Tax you are again conflating two concepts no doubt to try to make a point but I do agree that all properties should pay an appropriate level of council tax. I agree that the single person discount should be scrapped and also that any second homes should attract a full charge. The thing with Council Tax is that it is already a progressive tax - you have a bigger house you pay more tax regardless of occupancy.so your point which I suspect was a throwaway line is somewhat spurious.

I do think that the concepts behind a number of the Governments key policies are sensible, sound and correct but I do feel that their implementation has been badly handled.

 

It's all part of the overall housing issue that seems determined to widen the gap between rich and poor, with the former scooping up more and and more property and the latter working increasingly long hours in demeaning crap jobs and then handing over their pay for often sub standard housing. I totally disagree on single occupancy discounts for Council Tax. All taxes should be based on ability to pay and clearly two people can more easily afford these charges than one. Government policies are aimed at redistributing wealth away from the poor to their already wealthy supporters.

 

So how does stopping the right to buy or making people in social housing live in a property sufficient for their needs to allow others with greater need make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

As for council tax it is progressive. Big house equals big tax bill regardless of your ability to pay. Same as road tax. Drive a Porsche and get a big bill regardless of your ability to pay it.

 

Council tax isn't progressive. I pay 0.33% of the value of my house per annum. Someone living in a 2 bed terrace in the middle of Lowestoft pays 1% p.a.

 

But you still pay more for probably less in terms of services received. We are, as is often the case now reducing a debate to micro arguments and semantics. Is a tax progressive is the man with the greater asset pays more in absolute or relative terms? Council tax is certainly more progressive than vat and less so than income tax. In any tax system you are going to get some people on the margins who end up being disproportionately hit by any change in legislation. Tax on property is notoriously difficult to get right as your argument is based on the market value of property which is always subjective and never static. If the council in their wisdom decide to put a traveller encampment next to your house suddenly your property devalues and your council tax becomes a higher proportion of the property value. Is the tax now progressive? Rather than criticising policies which is easy to do why not impress me by offering your thoughts on a better way?

 

Mansion tax. A graded system based on values. From £500k at £2500pa rising on the square of the value. £600k you pay £3600 £700k you pay £4900 etc . A £1.5 million house £22,500. A £3 million £90k.

 

Presumably houses below the £500k mark remaining within the current system of Council Tax? Definitely a more progressive policy and one I would personally support but doesn't solve the issue you raised regarding you paying a lower marginal rate than the chap in the Lowestoft terrace.

I am also interested to hear your thoughts on what you would do to fairly allocate the housing stock held within the local authorities and Housing Associations?

In principal do you agree that it is correct for the Government to want to reduce the welfare bill by cutting family tax credits on the basis of the shortfall being covered by an increase in the individuals take home pay? I know the current proposal has been executed incorrectly but if, in principle do you think it is better for Amazon, E-bay, Starbucks et al to be paying their employees £330/week or for them to be able to pay their employees £260/week with the taxpayer making good the shortfall via tax credits?

 

They have put the cart before the horse. People on these kind of incomes cannot afford a period when their take home pay falls short of their bare monthly expenses. George Osborne reputedly spent £15k on a fortnight skiing a couple of years back, yet his lot expect a family to exist for a full year on that sort of money. The argument about tax dodging companies is specious the current government is only interested in taking money from the poor, who they consider stupid and uneducated, and giving it to the rich to pay for more holidays and associated bling. Sadly many of those poor were stupid enough to have voted for them and believing them when they said they were on their side. As far as Dave and Gideon et al are concerned the poor can just **** off, they see no place for them in this modern streamlined Americanised society we live in.

You cannot fairly allocate housing stock, it's a lottery with insufficient to go round. If you get one you are in clover and now will qualify to buy it at a subsidised price. If you don't then you are up **** creek in a barbed wire canoe.

 

Saw this on the Guardian this morning - honestly, you couldn't make it up, what an absolute ****er!

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Enjoyed reading some of the comment as well, particularly this one from 'Iwan Roberts'

 

Don't hold back Iwan !!!

 

Is he or is he not 100% bang on the money? Sounds like he is to me

Just wondering if all the Tory voters on here are happy with what they voted for? Great isn't it!!

 

I'm not expecting an answer to that last question by the way, I'm sure all our lovely Tory voters have their heads well and truly in the sand.

 

They've all decided they don't want to post in this thread any more. Apparently it's rife with "personal attacks".

 

Diddums. As you can probably imagine I have about as much sympathy for them as the people who voted these ****s in have for those millions of people who actually are being "attacked" by the evils of this Goverment's policies - policies such as the cut in working tax credits that weren't even part of their policy manifesto in the run up to the election, the ones they either lied about or kept quiet about to hoodwink the masses.

**** me I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I'd put my tick in their box last May, so why on earth should I give a **** if I hurt their precious feelings with what I say on here?

 

He's "Bob on" as they say in Wigan. I think there is a lot more pain to come and four and a half more years to suffer it.

 

I was under the impression that this thread was banned but evidently not. My main worry these days is that Dave and Gideon have no opposition now to slow their imposition of a Super Thatcherite agenda. Everyone seems more worried whether Corbyn bows or nods at the Cenotaph or who wins a dancing show.

 

Certainly can't argue with your final sentence there - and what a **** indictment of the state of our country right now, particularly our news reporting services, though no surprises their I guess.

I have to wonder, have our ignorant masses ever been so ignorant?

 

I am not one of them as you know, but it goes back to an earlier comment that I made in that you only have one vote and by that you do not necessarily countenance everything. We had to reign the overspend back in but the rate that Osborne is going at it is turning his own against them and stil he looks to carry on. That has a hint of Thatcher about it with the Poll Tax and ultimately it did for her.