Labour push for a 'Death' Tax

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251611/Labours-death-tax-plan-could.html


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/17/article-1251611-08377D98000005DC-500_468x248.jpg



A proposal to establish a 'death tax' to fund social care for the elderly could affect more than 17 million British families, the Tories claim. It was revealed this week that Labour ministers are considering plans for an inheritance levy on the estates of middle Britain, which would fund a national scheme for free residential care for elderly people. Labour is said to have carried out secret polls to see if voters would stomach a 10 per cent levy on their estates when they die.

It means that the families of middle income earners with estates worth £500,000 could be hit with a £50,000 tax bill when their relatives die, on top of inheritance tax. The Tories claim more than 70 per cent of voters could be affected by the proposals, as this is the percentage of the population who have estates worth at least £23,000, the level at which pensioners have to fund their own care.

If a death tax was set at this level, the Tories claim it would raise £4.5billion for the tax man. Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond, told the Daily Telegraph: 'Yje revelation that grieving families could be forced to stump up for a massive £4.5billion a year death tax shows what a terrible solution this is.' During furious exchanges with the Conservatives on Monday Health Secretary Andy Burnham refused to rule out the prospect of a death tax.
Mr Burnham will meet with charities and local authorities this week to discuss the proposal.

It follows a bitter row between the main political parties over how to fund free social care in England. They all agree that reform is needed as many old people are forced to sell their homes to pay for care. But private cross-party talks aimed at finding a solution to the problem broke down in acrimony last week. It led to the Conservatives issuing a controversial poster claiming that Labour wanted to introduce a £20,000 death tax to pay for free social care.A tax on breathing soon i'm sure. What right has the state got to tax people even more, everything in your house you've already been taxed on including the wages you earned to pay for the actual house and its content - and now they want to put a tax people handing down their own property to their own relatives.

We (England) already pay for Scotlands older people to have free elderly care because if we didnt, Scotland wouldn't be able to afford such a healthcare scheme and now not only are we being asked to pay for Scotlands free healthcare, we're being asked to pay for our own. Maybe if the government stopped wasting billions and billions we could actually afford to look after our own people.

Thoughts, right or wrong?

[Titch]

This is stupid, maby if they stopped wasting money on a pointless war they would be able to afford it! Our government is getting worse by the day.

[Black_Apalachi]

So when I die they want me to pay them money? Good luck with that lol

I know it's from your family, but I'd probably do something to make my family not responsible or something. There's got to some sort of work around like that so that your family don't have to pay? :P

[Sammeth.]

I dunno when the Tories say 70% of voters could be affected Im not sure if they mean 0.7% its all so confusing when they use statistics!

I dunno I don't think I would care too much when I die, my relatives can earn their money not take mine plus I won't have much to give away anyway (not that this would affect me) cus I plan on spending my money no point it saving loads and loads. My parents remind me quite oftne that I have very little to inherit cus they like holidays in the caribbean and to be honest I don't blame them at all. Its not as if they're (Labour) gonna use the money as toilet paper (might do seeing as its for free healthcare for grannys and grandaddies but still).

[-:Undertaker:-]

So when I die they want me to pay them money? Good luck with that lol

I know it's from your family, but I'd probably do something to make my family not responsible or something. There's got to some sort of work around like that so that your family don't have to pay? :P

Yeah often people sign the house to their relatives when they are older, so they are still living there but their son or daughter owns it legally. I think Labour changed the law surrounding that a few years ago because so many people were just doing what you and I have mentioned, it was something like within 7 years if you die after signing away the house you still have to pay the inheritance tax.

Slimy gets.

[ifuseekamy]

I don't agree with inheritance tax, there are ways around it though.

[Suspective]

Its disgusting, there still claiming tax off you whilst your in your grave.

[MrPinkPanther]

Well you can't fight it on "Moral grounds" about taxing someone when their dead because all of the mainstream parties support "Inheritance tax". I do however dislike "Death tax" but I happen to think its a damn sight better than what the Conservatives are proposing which is paying £6,000 into a pot when you retire.

[DJ-Ains.T]

It's stupid that they are asking for more money off us. They need to stop wasteing it, and use it properly. Stop building new swimming baths and what not... legalise cannabis and put some tax on that, they'll earn a bomb.

[Hushie]

It's stupid that they are asking for more money off us. They need to stop wasteing it, and use it properly. Stop building new swimming baths and what not... legalise cannabis and put some tax on that, they'll earn a bomb.

Errrrrrrrrrrr..... stop building what the population have been begging for for years?

[GommeInc]

Hmm, a bit confusing. Surely a better idea would be to change the tax so low estates are given a low tax, while high estates are taxed a few percent more? Either way, a stupid idea seeing that inheritance tax already exist :/ I can see the Conservatives agreeing with this idea soon enough, the little hypocrites and liars.

[Catzsy]

Well I am not sure about this one because in the South in particular it is not uncommon to have houses worth £500,000 and if there is only one beneficiary that would be a huge wallop! Could be a very devisive tax.

[alexxxxx]

. Maybe if the government stopped wasting billions and billions we could actually afford to look after our own people.


..but..but..but..but... THAT'S SOCIALISM

[-:Undertaker:-]

..but..but..but..but... THAT'S SOCIALISM


Oh no its not, people should be able to spend as much as their own money as they possibly can without the government choosing to do so. Obviosuly we need taxes, to fund the roads and so forth but theres a difference between building roads, funding nursing homes and so forth here compared to giving millions to the EU, India and Zimbabwe. Most people wouldnt even mind paying high taxes like we do if it was spent on the UK and spent well, but it isnt.

[AlexOC]

This is actually unbelievable. The last thing you want when your relative has died is a huge bill.

I know nothing of Politics, but 'Labour' sound terrible so far.

[alexxxxx]

Oh no its not, people should be able to spend as much as their own money as they possibly can without the government choosing to do so. Obviosuly we need taxes, to fund the roads and so forth but theres a difference between building roads, funding nursing homes and so forth here compared to giving millions to the EU, India and Zimbabwe. Most people wouldnt even mind paying high taxes like we do if it was spent on the UK and spent well, but it isnt.

dan im not havin any of your rubbish, you know as well as i do that high taxes, lots of government spending - socialism has no place in britain NEVER HAS DONE, NEVER WILL DO. SAY NO TO LiBALabC0N

[-:Undertaker:-]

dan im not havin any of your rubbish, you know as well as i do that high taxes, lots of government spending - socialism has no place in britain NEVER HAS DONE, NEVER WILL DO. SAY NO TO LiBALabC0N

That is socialism yeah and thats why I support the opposite, I dont see your point(?) that you are putting(?) across.

[dbgtz]

I think no more benefits at all tbh, that'll solve their problem. Isn't this similar to inheritance tax? Tbh the government kinda fails in a sense coz they wanna help businesses and stimulate growth and people have to spend in order to do so, but taking more money from people surely means they will spend less in shops and stuff? Me for prime minister so I get us out of this ****** overly taxed nation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think no more benefits at all tbh, that'll solve their problem. Isn't this similar to inheritance tax? Tbh the government kinda fails in a sense coz they wanna help businesses and stimulate growth and people have to spend in order to do so, but taking more money from people surely means they will spend less in shops and stuff? Me for prime minister so I get us out of this ****** overly taxed nation.

Spot-on, if you give people the ability to spend their money then it'll help business and even create business - its whats happened in the 1980s and the wealth of the country increased greatly. More money = you can spend more = shops make more profit = shops can expand = more jobs and so forth (otherwise known as the trickle down effect, part of Thatcherism). Its a very simple cycle and this Labour government doesnt understand it, just like the last Labour government.

You have my vote. :8

[Hecktix]

I see the flaws but I also see the benefits.

My arse will it affect 70% of voters mind. I highly doubt 70% of the voting public own an estate worth £500k+.

Free nursing homes etc is something needed in my opinion and this seems a plausible way to get it.

As Gomme said, the tories would only do something similar to this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I see the flaws but I also see the benefits.

My arse will it affect 70% of voters mind. I highly doubt 70% of the voting public own an estate worth £500k+.

Free nursing homes etc is something needed in my opinion and this seems a plausible way to get it.

As Gomme said, the tories would only do something similar to this.

A lot of houses down south are worth over £500k and more to the point, why should people who have been taxed on their wages, taxed when they buy their house, taxed when they buy the contents of their house and taxed throughout their life on using services - also be taxed for being dead?

Do we want to go back to the 1970s were we punished hard work/success by hiking taxes or do we want a country where people are encouraged to better themselves?

Of course something does need to be done, but the fact is we are a very wealthy country and if we had a government which stopped wasting/giving money away then maybe we'd be able to afford nice things like this instead of making the economic situation worse for both the state and families by creating yet another tax thus taking money away from consumers which has a relay effect on the state.

[alexxxxx]

That is socialism yeah and thats why I support the opposite, I dont see your point(?) that you are putting(?) across.
you've said completely the opposite, you've said 'we should look after our own people' yet this is completely against your theory of individualism, small state and people 'bankrolling their own retirement.' Plus you've shown support for the NHS, which is again completely against this ideology you talk of.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you've said completely the opposite, you've said 'we should look after our own people' yet this is completely against your theory of individualism, small state and people 'bankrolling their own retirement.' Plus you've shown support for the NHS, which is again completely against this ideology you talk of.

I think your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here;

Taxes have to exist yeah? - so the lower the taxes, the better because the individual can spend their own money. The taxes that we do have to have toi keep the country running; rather than giving it to other countries we spend it here because thats what the taxes generated by the British taxpayer are for. If was I completely indiviualist as you are suggesting, then I wouldn't support any form of government rule would I and i'd be an anarchist. As for the NHS, the NHS needs to be reformed with management and its budgets restrained. If all that fails then the only looming option would be privatisation although we should do anything we can to avoid that. When I say we should spend money on the NHS; well yes, if we have the money spend it on the NHS and not give it to India/EU and Zimbabwe because thats what we pay taxes for.

[Orangeesh]

I believe that is one stupid tax to push for, what's next...... birth tax?

How horrible it must be if you had lost a close family member, and then to top it off you get screwed over by the government.

[Circadia]

thats horrible people wanna die in peace not worried that there family will be debt ! i hope that it doesn't become complusary !

[GommeInc]

It's quite funny really. Businesses and the Government are incredibly rude and belittling when it comes to mourning, bereavement and death as it is. Strong penalties for using joint accounts after the death of someone (Tesco are a main contendant when it comes to horrible behaviour). This is just going to make the recently bereaved more anxious and upset :/

[dbgtz]

I'll probably hide my money near my death that not even my family know about it until they find it, unless it's too much to hide. You might aswell put a pound symbol as their gravestone.

[alexxxxx]

to be honest i think this tax is a good thing instead of our current system which bleeds people dry of their savings when they need to be put in a residential home. i know some peoples families who've literally lost hundreds of thousands of pounds...

[-:Undertaker:-]

to be honest i think this tax is a good thing instead of our current system which bleeds people dry of their savings when they need to be put in a residential home. i know some peoples families who've literally lost hundreds of thousands of pounds...

Then if its the case we havent got enough money, instead of punishing success and stripping assets of the taxpayer dry that they own not the government - stop wasting/giving money away to the EU, India, Zimbabwe and many other things/countries and we could then use that to fund our own people. That is afterall why we pay taxes in the first place.

[alexxxxx]

Then if its the case we havent got enough money, instead of punishing success and stripping assets of the taxpayer dry that they own not the government - stop wasting/giving money away to the EU, India, Zimbabwe and many other things/countries and we could then use that to fund our own people. That is afterall why we pay taxes in the first place.

i thought people shouldn't be sufficient on the state and drain everyone's money... :S bankroll their own retirements? :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

i thought people shouldn't be sufficient on the state and drain everyone's money... :S bankroll their own retirements? :S

Thats ideal yeah, and hopefully one day that could happen. However at this moment thats not the case, so the money that we pay taxes with should be used how we intend it to be used; on this country and its people rather than giving it to the European Union, Zimbabwe, India and bureaucrats in Whitehall who get paid more than the Prime Minister himself.

[alexxxxx]

Thats ideal yeah, and hopefully one day that could happen. However at this moment thats not the case, so the money that we pay taxes with should be used how we intend it to be used; on this country and its people rather than giving it to the European Union, Zimbabwe, India and bureaucrats in Whitehall who get paid more than the Prime Minister himself.

it will never happen and will never be possible. nor would it have the support of the majority of the population. dream on.

i would like the world to have no government, no laws, nothing, but to live by market mechanisms, but unfortunately economic theory is just theory and although it can be used to explain things, there is no such thing as market perfection and therefore completely free market economies CANNOT work. there must be regulation and 'socialist' policies to correct market failures such as the one we have highlighted here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it will never happen and will never be possible. nor would it have the support of the majority of the population. dream on.

i would like the world to have no government, no laws, nothing, but to live by market mechanisms, but unfortunately economic theory is just theory and although it can be used to explain things, there is no such thing as market perfection and therefore completely free market economies CANNOT work. there must be regulation and 'socialist' policies to correct market failures such as the one we have highlighted here.

Yes it would have the support of the population (using taxpayer money to fund this rather than having another stealth tax, a death tax) because people are sick of paying higher and higher taxes to fund an oversized government, meanwhile we're giving money to a rich country like India which has a massive nuclear weapons programme and a space exploration programme. To add to that, we are giving money to the regime of Mubage so he can spend it on however many cars his army generals want and we are giving billions to the European Union which has not had its audits checked for the past decade with supposed hundreds of billions missing from it. I just find it very strange how you can support yet another tax on hard working families but dont do what I do, and call for the obvious thing which is 'cut from other wasteful parts and fund it with that money' - as given with my examples.

As for that, yes of course it needs to be kept in check and the system we have now that was introduced in the 1980s is perfect. Little government control works and always has worked;- just look at the economies of the western world compared to those which had socialist government economic policies.

[alexxxxx]

Yes it would have the support of the population (using taxpayer money to fund this rather than having another stealth tax, a death tax) because people are sick of paying higher and higher taxes to fund an oversized government, meanwhile we're giving money to a rich country like India which has a massive nuclear weapons programme and a space exploration programme. To add to that, we are giving money to the regime of Mubage so he can spend it on however many cars his army generals want and we are giving billions to the European Union which has not had its audits checked for the past decade with supposed hundreds of billions missing from it. I just find it very strange how you can support yet another tax on hard working families but dont do what I do, and call for the obvious thing which is 'cut from other wasteful parts and fund it with that money' - as given with my examples.

Of course we should cut costs.. but everyone bankrolling their retirement - it wouldn't have the support of the population. have you seen some of the stories you hear of old people in the USA, VERY old people having to work until they die in order to pay for their own medication. That's not what we want here is it? That's 'self-sufficiency.' That's wrong in my eyes.


As for that, yes of course it needs to be kept in check and the system we have now that was introduced in the 1980s is perfect. Little government control works and always has worked;- just look at the economies of the western world compared to those which had socialist government economic policies.
You have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about. What we have is not a perfect market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Competition

What you've said is a joke.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course we should cut costs.. but everyone bankrolling their retirement - it wouldn't have the support of the population. have you seen some of the stories you hear of old people in the USA, VERY old people having to work until they die in order to pay for their own medication. That's not what we want here is it? That's 'self-sufficiency.' That's wrong in my eyes.

You have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about. What we have is not a perfect market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Competition

What you've said is a joke.

So why do you appear to support yet another tax instead of calling for the government to just cut waste as I have done? - yes I have heard of it, and as I said thats a long time off now and we are nowhere near it. That is the ideal stage and maybe one day it could be reached near enough. We are facing a demographic crisis very soon and some of these things are just totally unaffordable even with more taxes.

As for our market now, yes our market is pretty perfect (as perfect as you can get in the real world) and before you point to the recession - recessions happen and always will do whether or not you have a socialist or capitalist economy, the only difference being that while capitalist ecomies are in amazing growth periods for the majority of the time, socialist economies are in recession all the time. The wealth of this country greatly turned around in the 1980s, while in the 1970s we had power cuts and had to go to the IMF for emergency loans just to keep afloat the concept of 'Thatcherism' and its free market economics gave this country the wealth it has today and has made London a financial capital of the world. Why do you want to ruin that?

What you have said is the joke and history proves it.

[alexxxxx]

So why do you appear to support yet another tax instead of calling for the government to just cut waste as I have done? - yes I have heard of it, and as I said thats a long time off now and we are nowhere near it. That is the ideal stage and maybe one day it could be reached near enough. We are facing a demographic crisis very soon and some of these things are just totally unaffordable even with more taxes.

As for our market now, yes our market is pretty perfect (as perfect as you can get in the real world) and before you point to the recession - recessions happen and always will do whether or not you have a socialist or capitalist economy, the only difference being that while capitalist ecomies are in amazing growth periods for the majority of the time, socialist economies are in recession all the time. The wealth of this country greatly turned around in the 1980s, while in the 1970s we had power cuts and had to go to the IMF for emergency loans just to keep afloat the concept of 'Thatcherism' and its free market economics gave this country the wealth it has today and has made London a financial capital of the world. Why do you want to ruin that?

What you have said is the joke and history proves it.

no what you say is a joke. you have accused the EU of being socialist, yet it is the BIGGEST ECONOMY in the world. What IS socialist in your eyes? It's a word you throw around FAR FAR FAR too often. And what I was pointing to you about 'perfect markets' is the reason why I argue my points across as they are. It's an economic concept which governments work towards. It's a theory and a concept as it's impossible to truly achieve it. The 'perfect' system that you have described is far from it. What you subscribe to isn't freemarketeering nor true capitalism, but mere populism, which is what the DM preaches every day, getting something for nothing. It doesn't and won't happen.

London is a big financial centre, but Frankfurt is growing more and more importantly and New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore are all main players.

[-:Undertaker:-]

no what you say is a joke. you have accused the EU of being socialist, yet it is the BIGGEST ECONOMY in the world. What IS socialist in your eyes? It's a word you throw around FAR FAR FAR too often. And what I was pointing to you about 'perfect markets' is the reason why I argue my points across as they are. It's an economic concept which governments work towards. It's a theory and a concept as it's impossible to truly achieve it. The 'perfect' system that you have described is far from it. What you subscribe to isn't freemarketeering nor true capitalism, but mere populism, which is what the DM preaches every day, getting something for nothing. It doesn't and won't happen.

London is a big financial centre, but Frankfurt is growing more and more importantly and New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore are all main players.

And? - a socialist economy can be the biggest economy in the world just that it fails. You throw the words free market around FAR FAR too much because you seem to think that being part of an organisation which restricts trade/implements regulations such as 'the definition of a pig' is free market - that is not free market. The EU as a whole is socialist and its economics, meanwhile London remained just outside its grasp (not anymore thanks to the wonderful Lisbon Treaty the people of Europe were screaming for).

London is a big financial player so lets keep it that way, although we both know that the French are dying to get their hands on it and wrap red tape around it just as the Callaghan government did in the 1970s which led to this country becoming essentially a cesspit with little wealth and no hope. Do you want that again? - because it seems like you do.

Rather than support the obvious thing of cutting waste, you support more tax which hurst the economy even more and thus the cycle continues; Britain in the 1970s, Soviet Union and so forth.

[alexxxxx]

And? - a socialist economy can be the biggest economy in the world just that it fails. You throw the words free market around FAR FAR too much because you seem to think that being part of an organisation which restricts trade/implements regulations such as 'the definition of a pig' is free market - that is not free market. The EU as a whole is socialist and its economics, meanwhile London remained just outside its grasp (not anymore thanks to the wonderful Lisbon Treaty the people of Europe were screaming for).

can you please explain to me how the EU is socialist. because i just don't see it. how are its economics is its economy socialist?

[-:Undertaker:-]

can you please explain to me how the EU is socialist. because i just don't see it. how are its economics is its economy socialist?

The structure and the way the economy of the European Union is run is socialist and is ever more growing socialist as it takes hold of yet more and more national powers without our consent - hardly suprising as the European Union has many Communists high up such as Baroness Ashton. The EU is a closed economy just like socialist economies are; it restricts trade with other nations and any left-over produce it dumps on African markets every year thus lowering the price African farmers can sell their food for - ensuring continued poverty.

To add to this, over-regulation is constant and the EU costs business across Europe hundreds of billion each year, the EU introduced a piece of legislation for example which made it compulsory for slaughter houses to have a carer for pigs before they are slaughtered to look after their 'welfare' despite the fact they are going to be killed within minutes.

It costs people so much, but like everything left-wing; they just love control.

[alexxxxx]

The structure and the way the economy of the European Union is run is socialist and is ever more growing socialist as it takes hold of yet more and more national powers without our consent - hardly suprising as the European Union has many Communists high up such as Baroness Ashton. The EU is a closed economy just like socialist economies are; it restricts trade with other nations and any left-over produce it dumps on African markets every year thus lowering the price African farmers can sell their food for - ensuring continued poverty.

can you explain to me how not allowing price-fixing, even by governments, is ILLEGAL. that doesn't sound socialist at all, sounds like they'd prefer to let the MARKET decide. the eu moves the boundaries of free trade wider and wider, not in any case that I have ever heard has there been a country who allows 100% free trade with every single nation. the first police force in this country was customs and excise enforcers who worked for the king to collect tax off maritime traders. the usa does not have free trade with other nations? the cap, i will admit, doesn't work well for many people. but it isn't just us who does this, the americans do this as well.

i don't know the names of those 'high-up' in the eu's ranks, however, we don't appear much more of a socialist bloc than anyone else.


To add to this, over-regulation is constant and the EU costs business across Europe hundreds of billion each year, the EU introduced a piece of legislation for example which made it compulsory for slaughter houses to have a carer for pigs before they are slaughtered to look after their 'welfare' despite the fact they are going to be killed within minutes.

It costs people so much, but like everything left-wing; they just love control.
equally, allowing customers to purchase goods from abroad meant that car owners used to be able to purchase cars in northern france, belgium and the netherlands and bring them back to the UK sans additional tax, forcing car dealerships in the UK to lower their prices, improving economic efficiency.

even more equally, poor regulation help lead us to the situation we have today, in terms of the financial sector. it would have been better if regulation had been tighter, which, a given, would have hurt growth, but wouldn't have sent us down the creek down without a paddle, costing us hundreds of BILLIONS in bail outs.

[-:Undertaker:-]

can you explain to me how not allowing price-fixing, even by governments, is ILLEGAL. that doesn't sound socialist at all, sounds like they'd prefer to let the MARKET decide. the eu moves the boundaries of free trade wider and wider, not in any case that I have ever heard has there been a country who allows 100% free trade with every single nation. the first police force in this country was customs and excise enforcers who worked for the king to collect tax off maritime traders. the usa does not have free trade with other nations? the cap, i will admit, doesn't work well for many people. but it isn't just us who does this, the americans do this as well.

So wait a minute, why do we need to pay into something for policies such preventing price-fixing when we could do them perfectly well in our own parliament which is one of the oldest in the world? - more to the point, you mention price fixing; Peter Mandelson who was EU Trade Commissioner met with a Russian Steel Tycoon on his yaught for a 'holiday' a mere few days before the EU was supposed to deliever on his planned bit to get rid of tariffs/lower them on steel. Mandelson said they were just good friends, how convientent. I'm sure Peter and a Russia Steel Tycoon have much in common. :rolleyes:


i don't know the names of those 'high-up' in the eu's ranks, however, we don't appear much more of a socialist bloc than anyone else.

Our very own Baroness Ashton, was fundraiser of CND at the height of the Cold War;- refuses to say whether she accepted Soviet donations to CND.


equally, allowing customers to purchase goods from abroad meant that car owners used to be able to purchase cars in northern france, belgium and the netherlands and bring them back to the UK sans additional tax, forcing car dealerships in the UK to lower their prices, improving economic efficiency.

Individual economic treaties could of been worked out rather than us having to surrender our sovereignty.


even more equally, poor regulation help lead us to the situation we have today, in terms of the financial sector. it would have been better if regulation had been tighter, which, a given, would have hurt growth, but wouldn't have sent us down the creek down without a paddle, costing us hundreds of BILLIONS in bail outs.

Poor regulation did not lead us into this crisis. Whether there was regulation or not, we'd still of had a recession and bank collapses because throughout history we have had them; 1900s, 1930s, 1970s (Britain) and right now. The only difference that over-regulation makes is that when theres the boom time, it stifles it. Indeed it did cost us billions, but the fact of the matter is that any competant government should make provisions for a possible economic collapse at any time;- and talking about billions, we give billions to the EU every year just in direct funding so I have no idea why you are suddenly so concerned about finances.

[alexxxxx]

So wait a minute, why do we need to pay into something for policies such preventing price-fixing when we could do them perfectly well in our own parliament which is one of the oldest in the world? - more to the point, you mention price fixing; Peter Mandelson who was EU Trade Commissioner met with a Russian Steel Tycoon on his yaught for a 'holiday' a mere few days before the EU was supposed to deliever on his planned bit to get rid of tariffs/lower them on steel. Mandelson said they were just good friends, how convientent. I'm sure Peter and a Russia Steel Tycoon have much in common. :rolleyes:

why you ask me? because if it's done on a european level with a common market, state aid won't be able to help certain industries, hurting competition and hurting other trading partners, that's why it's done at a european level, honestly. if anything, what mandelson has done, whether you like the way it was allegedly done, has gone towards your goal, freer trade.


Our very own Baroness Ashton, was fundraiser of CND at the height of the Cold War;- refuses to say whether she accepted Soviet donations to CND.

god loads of the student population was in the CND.


Individual economic treaties could of been worked out rather than us having to surrender our sovereignty.

well no, because of how the eu is structured that would be impossible. also, if we wanted to trade with eu at the level we do now, we'd have to accept all regulation without any say in how it's formed. ask norway. great way of signing away sovereignty don't you think?


Poor regulation did not lead us into this crisis. Whether there was regulation or not, we'd still of had a recession and bank collapses because throughout history we have had them; 1900s, 1930s, 1970s (Britain) and right now. The only difference that over-regulation makes is that when theres the boom time, it stifles it. Indeed it did cost us billions, but the fact of the matter is that any competant government should make provisions for a possible economic collapse at any time;- and talking about billions, we give billions to the EU every year just in direct funding so I have no idea why you are suddenly so concerned about finances.
poor regulation did not lead us into this crisis. what a lie. the extent of which this happened was a direct result of bank deregulation in the late 80s and mid 90s where banks were then allowed to trade bonds, mortgages in the same 'pot' so to speak as their high street banking and commercial banking services. that's what made this problem as bad as it was. the billions that we don't receive back from the EU bare no resemblance to the cost of bailing out these banks due to poor regulation. i've always been worried about our financial state. the european union must do more to become transparent, it's accepted.

[-:Undertaker:-]

why you ask me? because if it's done on a european level with a common market, state aid won't be able to help certain industries, hurting competition and hurting other trading partners, that's why it's done at a european level, honestly. if anything, what mandelson has done, whether you like the way it was allegedly done, has gone towards your goal, freer trade.

I couldn't care less about business in other countries if i'm quite honest, they dont care about ours either hence why the French are so eager to get control of the city of London. As for Mandelson, yes aslong as it isnt corrupt like the EU and Mandelson then fine. I suppose thats why he can afford houses that someone on a wage like his wouldnt be able to afford.


god loads of the student population was in the CND.

Well she was in at least her 20s I imagine from her age when she accepted that money. Not to mention the fact the USSR was our biggest enemy at that time yet she apparently took a donation from the USSR? - if she took a donation from a Nazi Party i'm sure it'd be a whole different story wouldn't it?


well no, because of how the eu is structured that would be impossible. also, if we wanted to trade with eu at the level we do now, we'd have to accept all regulation without any say in how it's formed. ask norway. great way of signing away sovereignty don't you think?

Thank you, you didnt mean to say it but you just did that the EU restricts free trade with other free-trading nations. That is not free trade. As for the rest of the world, they do it yet dont seem to need EU regulation on important issues such as the definition of what a pig is, or what colour their traffic lights should be at a cost of billions and billions.


poor regulation did not lead us into this crisis. what a lie. the extent of which this happened was a direct result of bank deregulation in the late 80s and mid 90s where banks were then allowed to trade bonds, mortgages in the same 'pot' so to speak as their high street banking and commercial banking services. that's what made this problem as bad as it was. the billions that we don't receive back from the EU bare no resemblance to the cost of bailing out these banks due to poor regulation. i've always been worried about our financial state. the european union must do more to become transparent, it's accepted.[/QUOTE]

No it did not lead us into this mess. Boom and bust has always occured, it happened with the world economy in the 1900s and lasted until 1908, occured in the 1930s and lasted into the 1940s and has happened many other times before. De-regulation helped our country immensely, although we know you would rather have had Britain hostage of the IMF under Callgahan with his 80% tax rate with the Unions controlling the government, not the elected government controlling itself.

Ahh you say transparency, but why will the EU not have its audits signed off and why will they not let the people decide. They claim to be democratic because they elect themselves, just like the Soviet politicians elected the Premier of the USSR - was the SU democratic? You can spout like the EU the words 'transparency', 'democracy' and so forth but when you refuse to give people a choice, when you continuously hide corruption (such as the rule brought in that bans any whistleblowing in the EU) then quite honestly, people will not take you seriously.

[alexxxxx]

I couldn't care less about business in other countries if i'm quite honest, they dont care about ours either hence why the French are so eager to get control of the city of London. As for Mandelson, yes aslong as it isnt corrupt like the EU and Mandelson then fine. I suppose thats why he can afford houses that someone on a wage like his wouldnt be able to afford.

but you SHOULD care, because if they are state-aiding their car market, it means our cars become unattractive and boom, they are gone. you want free trade, you need common rules or it doesn't work.


Well she was in at least her 20s I imagine from her age when she accepted that money. Not to mention the fact the USSR was our biggest enemy at that time yet she apparently took a donation from the USSR? - if she took a donation from a Nazi Party i'm sure it'd be a whole different story wouldn't it?

i don't know whether this has been proven or not, but labour do not hide that they are part of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL.


Thank you, you didnt mean to say it but you just did that the EU restricts free trade with other free-trading nations. That is not free trade. As for the rest of the world, they do it yet dont seem to need EU regulation on important issues such as the definition of what a pig is, or what colour their traffic lights should be at a cost of billions and billions.

what are you on about? every country does it. the usa and eu doesn't have a 100% free trade agreement, nor do we with china. nor does the usa with iran, nor do they with india, uae. every country, especially democracies protect their inefficient industries due to the risk of social unrest.



No it did not lead us into this mess. Boom and bust has always occured, it happened with the world economy in the 1900s and lasted until 1908, occured in the 1930s and lasted into the 1940s and has happened many other times before. De-regulation helped our country immensely, although we know you would rather have had Britain hostage of the IMF under Callgahan with his 80% tax rate with the Unions controlling the government, not the elected government controlling itself.

you can't just say 'boom and bust' was the reason that made it happen. if you say that you can't blame the government for the recession. the widely-accepted reason that this happened was because of stupid risks unsupervised by regulators. don't bury your head in the sand.


Ahh you say transparency, but why will the EU not have its audits signed off and why will they not let the people decide. They claim to be democratic because they elect themselves, just like the Soviet politicians elected the Premier of the USSR - was the SU democratic? You can spout like the EU the words 'transparency', 'democracy' and so forth but when you refuse to give people a choice, when you continuously hide corruption (such as the rule brought in that bans any whistleblowing in the EU) then quite honestly, people will not take you seriously.
i don't know why they don't sign them off. but they should. just like you say you don't agree with everything UKIP do doesn't mean i agree with everything the eu does. the EU is democratic, we consider ourselves democratic but we don't elect our PM nor our head of state. everyone has a choice on whether they want to be in the EU every time they don't cross UKIP in the election box.

[-:Undertaker:-]

but you SHOULD care, because if they are state-aiding their car market, it means our cars become unattractive and boom, they are gone. you want free trade, you need common rules or it doesn't work.Thats why many many hundreds or even thousands of years ago we created something called a 'treaty' where you have rules, terms and coniditons of which signatures of the treaty abide by.


i don't know whether this has been proven or not, but labour do not hide that they are part of SOCIALISTS INTERNATIONAL.Indeed, so we know where her alliances and the rest of the Labour parties lie with dont we? - not with the democratic free world, but with the dictorial, big brother-state like countries that the USSR was and the EU now is. The rats jumped ship.


what are you on about? every country does it. the usa and eu doesn't have a 100% free trade agreement, nor do we with china. nor does the usa with iran, nor do they with india, uae. every country, especially democracies protect their inefficient industries due to the risk of social unrest. So why do you say we need the EU for free trade then? - you have just demolished your own argument single-handedly.


you can't just say 'boom and bust' was the reason that made it happen. if you say that you can't blame the government for the recession. the widely-accepted reason that this happened was because of stupid risks unsupervised by regulators. don't bury your head in the sand.Yes, it was. That is capitalism, again you are ignoring history. Boom and bust occurs and always will occur, it is an essential part of capitalism that regenerates money and entrepreneaualism. Bury my head in the sand? - you need to look at the 1900s, 1920s/1930s and now and you will find they all share one underlying thing in common that caused the bubble to burst - what goes up, always comes down.


i don't know why they don't sign them off. but they should. just like you say you don't agree with everything UKIP do doesn't mean i agree with everything the eu does. the EU is democratic, we consider ourselves democratic but we don't elect our PM nor our head of state. everyone has a choice on whether they want to be in the EU every time they don't cross UKIP in the election box.I think its pretty damn obvious why they wont sign them off and cant sign them off - because billions are missing, the EU is already depised enough around Europe so why on earth would they commit essential suicide by exposing themselves for the corrupt bunch of undemocratic zealots that they are?

The EU is not democratic, I do not elect 'my European President' nor 'my EU commission' but I and everyone else in this country pays taxes towards this whole thing. We want a vote, we were never asked to join this federal project and nor was most of Europe. In regards to the PM/Head of State - the PM and Monarch are British, therefore (should) be representing Britain and British values. More to the point, we elect the government whereas none of the EU is elected except for the EU parliament which can be bypassed anyway by both the courts and the commission. All the EU has to do it hold a referendum around Europe (you will say it treads on national sovereignty but you've never been bothered at any other time) and my argument and others arguments will be instantly voided.

You support a federal Europe and the offical aim and ultimate goal of the European Union is the creation of a federal Europe - why can you not accept the fact that people deserve a say on this especially as a great portion of our ancestors died to stop that very thing happening?

One reason and one reason alone, you know what the outcome would be.

[alexxxxx]

Thats why many many hundreds or even thousands of years ago we created something called a 'treaty' where you have rules, terms and coniditons of which signatures of the treaty abide by.

elaborate


So why do you say we need the EU for free trade then? - you have just demolished your own argument single-handedly.

because we need free trade with the rest of the EU, our largest trading partner.


Yes, it was. That is capitalism, again you are ignoring history. Boom and bust occurs and always will occur, it is an essential part of capitalism that regenerates money and entrepreneaualism. Bury my head in the sand? - you need to look at the 1900s, 1920s/1930s and now and you will find they all share one underlying thing in common that caused the bubble to burst - what goes up, always comes down.

1920s/1930s was caused by overproduction, speculation, poor banking regulations and isolationist measures taken by the USA. There are always reasons that can be sought for recessions and depressions. The last recession was by all means preventable.



I think its pretty damn obvious why they wont sign them off and cant sign them off - because billions are missing, the EU is already depised enough around Europe so why on earth would they commit essential suicide by exposing themselves for the corrupt bunch of undemocratic zealots that they are?

i haven't a clue what a zealot is and i don't know why the books aren't signed off.


The EU is not democratic, I do not elect 'my European President' nor 'my EU commission' but I and everyone else in this country pays taxes towards this whole thing. We want a vote, we were never asked to join this federal project and nor was most of Europe. In regards to the PM/Head of State - the PM and Monarch are British, therefore (should) be representing Britain and British values. More to the point, we elect the government whereas none of the EU is elected except for the EU parliament which can be bypassed anyway by both the courts and the commission. All the EU has to do it hold a referendum around Europe (you will say it treads on national sovereignty but you've never been bothered at any other time) and my argument and others arguments will be instantly voided.

The EU is democratic, whether you like it or not, it is democratic. It could be MORE democratic, that's a given. The president is relatively low-key, as the governments wanted and the comission has to approved by the parliament.


You support a federal Europe and the offical aim and ultimate goal of the European Union is the creation of a federal Europe - why can you not accept the fact that people deserve a say on this especially as a great portion of our ancestors died to stop that very thing happening?

One reason and one reason alone, you know what the outcome would be.
DON'T ELECT A LABOUR/LIBERAL DEMOCRAT/CONSERVATIVE MP then and you will get your wish! You can't deny the facts that these parties are constantly elected in and always show support towards the EU. 92% of the general election votes were for these parties. When (E)UKIP becomes electable or the anti-eu lobby actually gets going and comes up with some credible alternatives you may actually get your change. Our democratic system has spoken - live with it.