dynatech wrote:
> I have met Johnson a few times, and that 'postie' stuff really
> is bollocks...
BOLLOCKS:
Alan Johnson was a postie, worked for the Royal Mail and was Secretary for the Communications Union.
It's that simple.
Anyone can have an opinion of the bloke (I have a few myself that don't actually flatter) but to lie about him not being a postie and claim that the suggestion that he did is bollocks is very very silly.
Brown's 'Long-Term Vision'
Re: Brown's 'Long-Term TAX Vision'
we are not one of the lowest tax'd countries...... by the time you add in fuel duties, vat, council tax, flying tax, learning fees, leaving the UK tax, death tax...etc etc.....
Labour always misses out certain taxes when telling us "we've never had it so good"
!furious!
The average England tax payer pays even more tax than Scotland............
"the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along as before !"
!furious!
I don't mind paying tax.....I just feel Brown and Darling think its a bottomless pit !
Labour always misses out certain taxes when telling us "we've never had it so good"
!furious!
The average England tax payer pays even more tax than Scotland............
"the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along as before !"
!furious!
I don't mind paying tax.....I just feel Brown and Darling think its a bottomless pit !
Proud to be Von Boy
Re: Brown's 'Long-Term TAX Vision'
Von Boy wrote:
>>>
Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, Wazza. But according to this table, the UK is roughly mid-table (14th out of 30) in a comparison of the OVERALL tax burden in 30 industrial nations.
So while the UK may not be "one of the highest taxed" countries, it isn't "one of the lowest taxed" either. Bear in mind too that these figures only go up to 2004 - and Grim Gordon has turned the tax screw further since then. So the UK might have edged up a notch or two in the interim.
>>>
Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, Wazza. But according to this table, the UK is roughly mid-table (14th out of 30) in a comparison of the OVERALL tax burden in 30 industrial nations.
So while the UK may not be "one of the highest taxed" countries, it isn't "one of the lowest taxed" either. Bear in mind too that these figures only go up to 2004 - and Grim Gordon has turned the tax screw further since then. So the UK might have edged up a notch or two in the interim.
Re: Brown's 'Long-Term Vision'
warren zevon rip wrote:
>>>
Completely irrelevant.
And in any case - to use your own argument - that also applies in other countries too.
Hence the only way to look at the question when making sweeping statements about which countries are "high-tax" and which are the "low-tax" is in terms of the total tax burden.
Your claim was that the UK is one of the lowest taxed countries.
I presented figures that showed that this isn't the case at all, in terms of the TOTAL TAX BURDEN.
You however appear to be wanting to pick and choose which taxes "count", and to move the goalposts accordingly - depending on which rates of specific tax types make Grim Gordon look good.
Come on, Wazza. You're an intelligent bloke. You're not **seriously** suggesting that Brown will go down in history as a tax-cutting Chancellor / PM, are you??!!
I can't find the 1997 table that you asked for in order to make a comparison. But here's just a few links to various other sources (and there are hundreds more) that lay out just how much Labour has been progressively increasing taxes over the past decade, and the pattern looks set to continue (though I'm looking forward with interest to hearing whether Darling Alistair will steal the Tories' inheritance tax policy in his pre-budget review due this afternoon).
To borrow a line from one of them - read 'em and weep:
(1999, BBC)
(2000, Telegraph, quoting Price Waterhouse)
(2001, BBC quoting Institute for Fiscal Studies)
(2001)
(BBC, 2003)
(2006, Daily Mail)
(2007)
(undated)
- Eric
>>>
Completely irrelevant.
And in any case - to use your own argument - that also applies in other countries too.
Hence the only way to look at the question when making sweeping statements about which countries are "high-tax" and which are the "low-tax" is in terms of the total tax burden.
Your claim was that the UK is one of the lowest taxed countries.
I presented figures that showed that this isn't the case at all, in terms of the TOTAL TAX BURDEN.
You however appear to be wanting to pick and choose which taxes "count", and to move the goalposts accordingly - depending on which rates of specific tax types make Grim Gordon look good.
Come on, Wazza. You're an intelligent bloke. You're not **seriously** suggesting that Brown will go down in history as a tax-cutting Chancellor / PM, are you??!!
I can't find the 1997 table that you asked for in order to make a comparison. But here's just a few links to various other sources (and there are hundreds more) that lay out just how much Labour has been progressively increasing taxes over the past decade, and the pattern looks set to continue (though I'm looking forward with interest to hearing whether Darling Alistair will steal the Tories' inheritance tax policy in his pre-budget review due this afternoon).
To borrow a line from one of them - read 'em and weep:
(1999, BBC)
(2000, Telegraph, quoting Price Waterhouse)
(2001, BBC quoting Institute for Fiscal Studies)
(2001)
(BBC, 2003)
(2006, Daily Mail)
(2007)
(undated)
- Eric
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Brown's 'Long-Term Vision'
Some of these comments are not of the rational and objective quality I know you?re capable of, Warren. You seem to be getting a little testy, frustrated, and impatient (desperate would be to strong a word). For instance, going of at a slight tangent bringing emotive issues like the BNP into it. Isn?t it possible for rational people to discuss immigration without invoking the BNP?
You have also misrepresented me and my comments on the Army ? saying that I said words to the effect that working class soldiers were braver than middleclass ones. I beg your pardon, but I never said any such thing. I don?t believe I ever even mentioned middleclass soldiers. I did say -
?Do you want to sit by while brave working class lads die and ivory tower socialists sit by and sneer at their profession and achievements? Do you want those who have laid their lives on the line or been injured to be forgotten and swept under the carpet, lest they offend the anti-militaristic sensibilities of posh middleclass socialists??
Which was an attack on middleclass socialists and their anti-militaristic tendencies ? and clearly nothing to do with the bravery of middleclass soldiers, which is no doubt equal to any other group of Army personnel. So, you either misunderstood me (unlikely) or it was a cheap and cynical and attempt to misrepresent my words and lend more emotive weight to your riposte. But you can?t fool Officer Dibs? he sees through all.
I reckon this thread is now becoming a little to diffuse and therefore maybe time for me to bail out. However, fret not, we have touched on some very interesting issues that may well be better addressed in more tightly focused threads.
Officer Dibble
You have also misrepresented me and my comments on the Army ? saying that I said words to the effect that working class soldiers were braver than middleclass ones. I beg your pardon, but I never said any such thing. I don?t believe I ever even mentioned middleclass soldiers. I did say -
?Do you want to sit by while brave working class lads die and ivory tower socialists sit by and sneer at their profession and achievements? Do you want those who have laid their lives on the line or been injured to be forgotten and swept under the carpet, lest they offend the anti-militaristic sensibilities of posh middleclass socialists??
Which was an attack on middleclass socialists and their anti-militaristic tendencies ? and clearly nothing to do with the bravery of middleclass soldiers, which is no doubt equal to any other group of Army personnel. So, you either misunderstood me (unlikely) or it was a cheap and cynical and attempt to misrepresent my words and lend more emotive weight to your riposte. But you can?t fool Officer Dibs? he sees through all.
I reckon this thread is now becoming a little to diffuse and therefore maybe time for me to bail out. However, fret not, we have touched on some very interesting issues that may well be better addressed in more tightly focused threads.
Officer Dibble
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Brown's 'Long-Term Vision'
?I did notice that you didn't reply to the points about the tory bribe / buying votes to get in then back tracking on promises?
Are you jesting? I did address those points ? I said.
?Never mind the petty little machinations of local politics. Look at the bigger picture?
And then latter on -
?These are the questions you should be asking yourself come the next election. Never mind Tory councillors advertising their local garden centre.?
I?m afraid I have little interest in petty little disputes and intrigues between toy town politicians arguing over the appropriate combination of colours for the litterbin at the new bus stop. What?s the matter with you? Don?t you see that there are big ideological issues at stake here that will affect you and the lives of your family? I would suggest that whether or not the local Tory councillor does what all businessmen do and promotes his business would not be one of the biggest issues that will affect the future lives of both you and your loved ones.
If you want to talk about local government or Dave Cameron?s green credentials why not start a separate thread about it?
I believe you came to realise that your interjection was not best considered (particularly after my unmasking Alan Johnson as a bona-fida posh chap ? whether he was a postie or not). So you thought you best bolster your case by hopping a ride on Warren?s coats tails and parroting his emotive and defamatory allegation that I questioned the bravery of middleclass soldiers. Not your finest hour.
But thank you for drawing my attention to postie, Alan Johnson ? I might never have found out that he was a middleclass chap all along. As someone who is out to expose socialists as posh, snotty, patronizing hypocrites, this was manna from heaven for me. But now I think back, there was always something odd about him ? he was always a little to smooth and slick. Not like the few genuine Labour proletarians such as Blunkett or that buffoon, Prescott.
Officer Dibble
Are you jesting? I did address those points ? I said.
?Never mind the petty little machinations of local politics. Look at the bigger picture?
And then latter on -
?These are the questions you should be asking yourself come the next election. Never mind Tory councillors advertising their local garden centre.?
I?m afraid I have little interest in petty little disputes and intrigues between toy town politicians arguing over the appropriate combination of colours for the litterbin at the new bus stop. What?s the matter with you? Don?t you see that there are big ideological issues at stake here that will affect you and the lives of your family? I would suggest that whether or not the local Tory councillor does what all businessmen do and promotes his business would not be one of the biggest issues that will affect the future lives of both you and your loved ones.
If you want to talk about local government or Dave Cameron?s green credentials why not start a separate thread about it?
I believe you came to realise that your interjection was not best considered (particularly after my unmasking Alan Johnson as a bona-fida posh chap ? whether he was a postie or not). So you thought you best bolster your case by hopping a ride on Warren?s coats tails and parroting his emotive and defamatory allegation that I questioned the bravery of middleclass soldiers. Not your finest hour.
But thank you for drawing my attention to postie, Alan Johnson ? I might never have found out that he was a middleclass chap all along. As someone who is out to expose socialists as posh, snotty, patronizing hypocrites, this was manna from heaven for me. But now I think back, there was always something odd about him ? he was always a little to smooth and slick. Not like the few genuine Labour proletarians such as Blunkett or that buffoon, Prescott.
Officer Dibble