Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 10:18:37 GMT
Maturbating is what goes on here, winding up the gimmers. It's very frank of you to admit to that ... a man's got to have a hobby. Rog ETA Just a thought ... in light of you confessing your hobby ... not you buying up all the loo rolls is it ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 10:26:50 GMT
Back on subject - sort of...
I hope if Labour were currently in charge and had introduced the Furlough Scheme, that no one would have complained that Labour was bankrupting the country...
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 14, 2020 11:47:47 GMT
Back on subject - sort of...
I hope if Labour were currently in charge and had introduced the Furlough Scheme, that no one would have complained that Labour was bankrupting the country...
Several would have gone on about nowt else for months. Not realising the Labour magic money tree is evergreen and highly productive.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 14, 2020 12:03:24 GMT
Matur(e)ba(i)ting is what goes on here, winding up the gimmers. This thread didn't really go the way you wanted did it.... Only because its stoney ground round here and may need further explanation, bless.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 14, 2020 12:06:50 GMT
Back on subject - sort of...
I hope if Labour were currently in charge and had introduced the Furlough Scheme, that no one would have complained that Labour was bankrupting the country...
Conservatives, with their furlough scheme, are bankrupting the country. It should have been set at 50%, maximum Β£1000 a month. Very few state payments relate to earnings/ contributions these days, why make this an exception?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 14, 2020 13:23:34 GMT
Back on subject - sort of...
I hope if Labour were currently in charge and had introduced the Furlough Scheme, that no one would have complained that Labour was bankrupting the country...
why not, it would be the kind of cheap shot that you lot like so much.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 14, 2020 16:16:20 GMT
Back on subject - sort of...
I hope if Labour were currently in charge and had introduced the Furlough Scheme, that no one would have complained that Labour was bankrupting the country...
Conservatives, with their furlough scheme, are bankrupting the country. It should have been set at 50%, maximum Β£1000 a month. Very few state payments relate to earnings/ contributions these days, why make this an exception? You're only saying that because you aren't eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 14, 2020 16:26:44 GMT
Conservatives, with their furlough scheme, are bankrupting the country. It should have been set at 50%, maximum Β£1000 a month. Very few state payments relate to earnings/ contributions these days, why make this an exception? You're only saying that because you aren't eligible. I don't think so. The government has showed such reckless largesse with this scheme that it's difficult to believe it was instigated by a Tory government. If such generosity were due the minimum requirement should have been part of the sum to be by way of a loan, rather than a grant. And/ or a clear undertaking that when taxes rise in the future to pay for this that the increases are in income taxes, all furloughed workers pay these, rather than indirect tax rises which are paid by all, including the millions who have received nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 16:35:51 GMT
You're only saying that because you aren't eligible. I don't think so. The government has showed such reckless largesse with this scheme that it's difficult to believe it was instigated by a Tory government. If such generosity were due the minimum requirement should have been part of the sum to be by way of a loan, rather than a grant. And/ or a clear undertaking that when taxes rise in the future to pay for this that the increases are in income taxes, all furloughed workers pay these, rather than indirect tax rises which are paid by all, including the millions who have received nothing. First time I think I've ever agreed with you about how to run the economy.
Bring on income tax rises!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 14, 2020 16:43:18 GMT
You're only saying that because you aren't eligible. I don't think so. The government has showed such reckless largesse with this scheme that it's difficult to believe it was instigated by a Tory government. If such generosity were due the minimum requirement should have been part of the sum to be by way of a loan, rather than a grant. And/ or a clear undertaking that when taxes rise in the future to pay for this that the increases are in income taxes, all furloughed workers pay these, rather than indirect tax rises which are paid by all, including the millions who have received nothing. The 37-year-old known as 'Octomum' and 'Britain's welfare queen' after boasting on reality TV how easy it was to milk the system. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8319423/Police-warn-mother-eight-taking-children-mistaking-TWO-families.html
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 15, 2020 9:47:30 GMT
You're only saying that because you aren't eligible. I don't think so. The government has showed such reckless largesse with this scheme that it's difficult to believe it was instigated by a Tory government. If such generosity were due the minimum requirement should have been part of the sum to be by way of a loan, rather than a grant. And/ or a clear undertaking that when taxes rise in the future to pay for this that the increases are in income taxes, all furloughed workers pay these, rather than indirect tax rises which are paid by all, including the millions who have received nothing.Β So you are telling us that if you had been eligible you would have refused it? I think you are just playing Dog in the Manger. This is being done for the common good, we all suffer to a greater or lesser degree if lots of businesses go bang. There would be greater economic turmoil. It will only cost 1 or 2 billion interest to borrow 100 billion. Cheaper than the alternative, trying to rebuild and restart closed businesses. It also demonstrates that the tories were living up to their hard earned reputation when they claimed Labour's budget plans were an impossibility. Did you see the debacle that was PMQs BTW. Poor Boris can't cope without a baying mob behind him to divert the cut and thrust of Kier's razor sharp mind. First strategy, lieπ. Second strategy, continue lieing. π PHWOAR WAFFLE WHIFF WHAFF. Who needs Jeremy? π€£
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2020 10:23:48 GMT
I don't think so. The government has showed such reckless largesse with this scheme that it's difficult to believe it was instigated by a Tory government. If such generosity were due the minimum requirement should have been part of the sum to be by way of a loan, rather than a grant. And/ or a clear undertaking that when taxes rise in the future to pay for this that the increases are in income taxes, all furloughed workers pay these, rather than indirect tax rises which are paid by all, including the millions who have received nothing. So you are telling us that if you had been eligible you would have refused it? I think you are just playing Dog in the Manger. This is being done for the common good, we all suffer to a greater or lesser degree if lots of businesses go bang. There would be greater economic turmoil. It will only cost 1 or 2 billion interest to borrow 100 billion. Cheaper than the alternative, trying to rebuild and restart closed businesses. It also demonstrates that the tories were living up to their hard earned reputation when they claimed Labour's budget plans were an impossibility. Did you see the debacle that was PMQs BTW. Poor Boris can't cope without a baying mob behind him to divert the cut and thrust of Kier's razor sharp mind. First strategy, lieπ. Second strategy, continue lieing. π PHWOAR WAFFLE WHIFF WHAFF. Who needs Jeremy? π€£ Yes interest rates are low, but that doesn't mean that the principal sum doesn't need to be repaid as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 10:28:41 GMT
So you are telling us that if you had been eligible you would have refused it? I think you are just playing Dog in the Manger. This is being done for the common good, we all suffer to a greater or lesser degree if lots of businesses go bang. There would be greater economic turmoil. It will only cost 1 or 2 billion interest to borrow 100 billion. Cheaper than the alternative, trying to rebuild and restart closed businesses. It also demonstrates that the tories were living up to their hard earned reputation when they claimed Labour's budget plans were an impossibility. Did you see the debacle that was PMQs BTW. Poor Boris can't cope without a baying mob behind him to divert the cut and thrust of Kier's razor sharp mind. First strategy, lieπ. Second strategy, continue lieing. π PHWOAR WAFFLE WHIFF WHAFF. Who needs Jeremy? π€£ Yes interest rates are low, but that doesn't mean that the principal sum doesn't need to be repaid as well. Cancel Trident and rely on the Orange One - principle sum virtually wiped out!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 15, 2020 10:33:02 GMT
you must be feeling a bit mellow today Jim β¦. maybe because it's your birthday ? almost a non bile political post !!! Only problem I can see with your summing up about not being able to afford Jeremy's spending plans is that, if the money had already been borrowed for his magic money tree ideas, another lot would have had to be borrowed to support during Corvid 19 β¦β¦. and we would have been twice as deep in the mire sensible fiscal policy is to not spend the maximum but save some for a rainy day β¦β¦ well it's raining rather hard and if there had been a magic money tree program, we would be already deeply indebted before we needed to spend a fortune
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2020 11:29:09 GMT
Anyway this thread is heartening, I never thought I'd see the day when our Jim would guard Tory policy against attacks on it.
|
|