Falling in Love...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think it's eminently practical, and entirely necessary. And there's no need to specifically ear-mark the resultant savings for anything in particular.

[MOBIUS]

Start with a nice big increase on the top rate (or rates) of income tax. Then add the Mansion tax the LibDems campaigned for and have since gone quiet about.

That's nothing miraculous, of course. It doesn't take a miracle.

The problem with these three is that, as previously mentioned, the Lib Dems are the junior member of the coalition, so are likely to have to pick and choose which battles they can win of a minority.

But, the higher rate of tax hasn't been pegged back, as I can imagine a purely Tory party to do...

[MOBIUS]

Oh, and scrap Trident. None of this "not like-for-like" blathering. Scrap it. Bye-bye.

Scrapping nuclear weapons completely is not part of the Lib Dem manifesto, so this is irrelevant as a point of argument. Personally, I think the policy that the Lib Dems and only the Lib Dems campaigned for, has an increasingly high likelihood of actually coming to pass - particularly now that it seems the aircraft carriers are going to go through.

[MOBIUS]

Oh yes. Tax capital gains at the same rates as income. Not a flat 28%. As income. Which, by some bizarre coincidence was another LibDem manifesto pledge.

Yeah well, again when you come up directly against Tory interests, it is going to be hard to convince them from the position of the junior party. Frankly, it seems more prudent to avoid potentially damaging skirmishes for winning the odd policy battle here and there. This is, after all a government of compromise - which means a lot of stuff (evidently!) is going to happen that I don't like - but that some stuff that otherwise wouldn't have happened, that I do like, is happening.

[MOBIUS]

Without even looking at the NHS, they could simply close all public sector final salary pension schemes to new contributions, and switch everyone in them to money purchase schemes- which is what's already happened to most of the private sector.

Yeah, good luck with THAT one, judging by the reaction to the proposal of far lesser reforms than that right now! But why are you happy to **** over the pensioners and not the students...!? Many of them are part of the poor too? It seems strange that you don't mind punishing one group of no less deserving people for another group - especially when both situations involve the same kind of erosion of historical benefits...?

See, Mobius? That's not a miracle either. That whole "the only alternative to our way is magic, miracles and results mysteriously coming out of arses" argument is risible.

So, **** everyone else EXCEPT the students...!?

Incidentally, talking of pensions, a Lib Dem pledge to re link the basic state pensions to earnings has been successful!

[MOBIUS]

Already considered it, thanks. Considered years ago, in fact, just as the LibDems clearly did in view of their opposition to this issue which stretches back for years.

This is a special set of circumstances brought on by Labour blindly following the rest of the sheep and sucking our economy into the current disaster we find ourselves in. This is new, here and now, and needs to be dealt with immediately - meaning all bets are off! In a perfect world, I'm sure Vince would remove tuition fees at a stroke - but apparently he can't - so instead he's decided to better target who pays for going to university, surely the next best thing...?

Incidentally, nice attempt to patronise us there. Just the right approach to take with long-term LibDem voters who support the party on political principles, not brand loyalty.

I'm not trying to patronise you, it just seems as though you didn't take time to actually look at the proposals in detail and just jumped to conclusions. My understanding is that the coalition has just made it more affordable, and therefore easier, for the poorest 30% of the country to go to university - what's not to like about that...!!?

It is also equally patronising, IMO, to imply that I am somehow blindly loyal to the Lib Dem 'brand' as if I'm somehow happy to swallow any **** they shovel my way...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

But why are you happy to **** over the pensioners and not the students...!?

Because public final salary pensions are an unsustainable model.

Student fees involves funding someone for 3-4 years. Final salary pensions involve funding them for X years. X years used to be about 10 years (when the funding started). It's now over 20 years, and rising steadily.

That why you have the black holes in funding. It can't go on. I know it, and I suspect you know it. The LibDems certainly know it- but appear to be trying to hope it won't be them who has to tackle it.

[MikeH]

Scrap trident != Scrap nuclear weapons.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Moot point, seeing as it was me bringing it up. I've been a CND supporter for years.

[Dauphin]

All these people complaining about child benefit, yet no-one is complaining about the reduction in tax breaks on pension payments which will raise around £4billion from the top 100,000 earners.

Tories should point out that they are taxing their own with vigour, not just "the squeezed middle" or "the hard hit poor".

[MikeH]

Because 100,000 people is a tiny amount in comparison to child benefit, and if the press make a fuss about those richest 100,000 the public won't get on board.


But I can't help thinking people just won't put that money into pensions, just find other tax free or offshore investments, so the tax raised won't be 4bn.

[MOBIUS]

Except the Child Benefit thing only hits the top 10% of earners - one would hope that they could afford to do without government handouts...

It's usually this group that moans about lazy unemployed people, and yet they seem happy to be raking in at least £100 a month in taxpayers' money.

[MikeH]

People think it's a slippery slope to Child Benefit being cut for more people which is part of the reaction.

Also, more specifically, it goes to the mother in a couple, one of whom is in the top 10% of earners.

[Dauphin]

But I can't help thinking people just won't put that money into pensions, just find other tax free or offshore investments, so the tax raised won't be 4bn.

For tax avoidance here, putting into an offshore investment won't typically work. As is, you earn £1 million, and put £250,000 in a pension and that £250,000 is tax free earnings. You earn £1 million and put it into an offshore trust, and you have to pay tax on the £250,000.

They can choose to remunerate themselves in a different fashion, but that remuneration is likely to be taxed in someway.

[MikeH]

ah. yeah. dur