Tories vow not to increase income tax for UK's richest - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rufia;52312290]Oh, I accept that people have opposing views. I'm just not gonna' pretend that someone's views are at all reasonable if they appear to be entirely disjointed from reality.[/QUOTE] Why do we allow elections then if they are not reasonable?

[QUOTE=David29;52312182]Christ sake. The fact that you think I think that May is a good leader just shows you have paid zero attention to my previous posts. This is exactly the mentality I am arguing against. Edit: Bonus points for going back and re-reading my posts.[/QUOTE] Alright, to rephrase; Replace "good" with "better", with "more of" your best interests... than Corbyn I accept people's right to vote for whoever they please. Doesn't mean I rescind mine to challenge them on why.

[QUOTE=David29;52312077]No? Because what you are saying is purely opinion. And that's what irks me about the responses I am receiving - people are trying to pass opinion off as fact.[/QUOTE] Because a strong leader definitely chickens out of debating Jeremy Corbyn, right? And a strong leader definitely uses loopholes to create attack ads [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/labour-accuses-tories-of-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments"]full of lies[/URL], right? [editline]4th June 2017[/editline] Strong leaders instantly latches on to tragedies to push politics, right?

[QUOTE=David29;52312306]Why do we allow elections then if they are not reasonable?[/QUOTE] Because it's better than the alternative. Better to have a number of different people each with a number of different opinions of varying degrees of reason decide how the country is run than it is to have a single person of varying degrees of reason and all it takes is one idiot to fuck the whole thing up. I mean that is essentially one of the big merits of democracy. Democracy is not about the everyone knowing what's best overall. It's about averaging out the good and the bad ideas so that we don't screw things up too badly when we make a mistake. I'd be down for a meritocracy if it were actually implementable in practise, but since it's not, a democracy will have to do. And just to be clear, I called certain opinions unreasonable, not people and not the idea of elections. And I'm afraid I do see the opinion that Labour leadership cannot be trusted to run the country as unreasonable, certainly when contrasted with Conservative leadership. If you'd like to elaborate perhaps you can illuminate me on some subject that I am unaware, but thus far I have yet to see any significant evidence to support the idea and more that would seem to discredit it.

[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;52310959]I guess there's a magic money tree for the rich[/QUOTE] And it's fed with compost made from the bodies of the poor

[QUOTE=Rufia;52312425]Because it's better than the alternative. Better to have a number of different people each with a number of different opinions of varying degrees of reason decide how the country is run than it is to have a single person of varying degrees of reason and all it takes is one idiot to fuck the whole thing up. I mean that is essentially one of the big merits of democracy. Democracy is not about the everyone knowing what's best overall. It's about averaging out the good and the bad ideas so that we don't screw things up too badly when we make a mistake. I'd be down for a meritocracy if it were actually implementable in practise, but since it's not, a democracy will have to do. And just to be clear, I called certain opinions unreasonable, not people and not the idea of elections. And I'm afraid I do see the opinion that Labour leadership cannot be trusted to run the country as unreasonable, certainly when contrasted with Conservative leadership. If you'd like to elaborate perhaps you can illuminate me on some subject that I am unaware, but thus far I have yet to see any significant evidence to support the idea and more that would seem to discredit it.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. It is better than the alternative. But according to some people, you either vote the correct way, the incorrect way, or not at all. That doesn't strike me as democracy. Also: Gokiyono needs to also go back and re-read my posts.

Completely agree with David.. Don't insult people who vote different, doesn't help the cause and is mean/unreasonable regardless

[QUOTE=David29;52311268]I've never understood the logic of "anyone who doesn't vote for the party I support is stupid". Would it be better for me to just not vote, then?[/QUOTE] I agree with this, I honestly do- but I sympathise with people who consider working class Tory voters to be at least incredibly misinformed because they are objectively voting against their own interests. It's not really a popularity contest, it's about what's best for the country and the people. That said, my advice would be the same as the Tories' own advice: Judge them on their record.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52312758]It's 45% for high incomes, how high do you think it should be Facepunch?[/QUOTE] I think 50% is perfectly reasonable. On the threshold wage for the top bracket, you would bring home £61500 as opposed to £67650. That's a few thousand pounds extra out of your hefty wage to potentially feed hundreds, keep healthcare free and efficient for everyone (including you), improve infrastructure (that you would use) and improve (then) nationalised public services, that again you yourself probably use. Also, on the topic of corporation tax, because I can feel someone bringing it up, it absolutely should not be cut further, and absolutely should be raised. Is the proposed raise even outrageous? "But the companies will go elsewhere!" [B]WHERE [/B]will they go? [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/l2nBsRD.png[/IMG] Maybe they're already all running off to Hungary to take advantage of their 9% corporation tax...:downs:

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52312802]Ireland and the Netherlands are both super close and are classed as corporate tax havens[/QUOTE] The question in my mind has always been how much you would need to cut corporate tax to make this feasible - if a company can save 10% on their tax bill, surely they would do it? 5% could would be billions for some companies as well. Is there really any sense in trying to compete with a tax haven?