Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

Labour must be having a right old laugh about this, they caused the mess, leave the others to clear it up and take the blame.

I think its very misguided of people to be so anti Tory/Coalition - its the political system thats fucked up, with all the parties guilty of pandering to commerce and unrealistic economic expansion at the expense of social progress.

If anything i revile Labour more than any other party for selling their history totally down the drain.

I think blaming Labour is incredibly short sighted. The political system you revile is to blame, by embracing the greed is good mantra of Thatcher and her ilk they gave the green light to a generation of bankers to use whatever means necessary to generate vast profits and ensured that those pesky regulators who stopped this kind of behaviour in the past played along.

is this in relation to CGT?

Yes.

Oh yeah, thanks :)

I know fuck all about this confusing and magical world. Anyway. Again. Tell everyone in the UK to fork over 6k a year for three years - as a fee for the pleasure of bankers fucking up - and you will see a lot of angry people.

Its easy to blame the bankers - but the truth is thought they played a part, every one in the country went credit crazy, and the real blame lies with the regulators who set the framework which enabled them to do this.

I think you will find many people are having to swallow 6ks worth of lost income via cuts/pay etc.

I dont disagree with the students, but i think their is a huge amount of naivety about how they have conducted their campaign - if anything there is a real opportunity here for the brightest minds of tomorrow to step up to the plate, but very few of the student leaders/reps i have seen interviewed have not had the intellectual ability to get their argument across, or put down the politicians.

Its easy to blame the bankers - but the truth is thought they played a part, every one in the country went credit crazy, and the real blame lies with the regulators who set the framework which enabled them to do this.

Not in my fucking name you don't. I don't think I'm alone in this either, in fact you might find I'm in the majority.

Yes.

a lot of the people who are getting hit by the CGT rises are people who have properties as investiments for their pension and retirement and cant afford tax advisors as you describe. The CGT changes will reduce their expected investment considerably in many cases. I think you are living in lala land

Its easy to blame the bankers - but the truth is thought they played a part, every one in the country went credit crazy, and the real blame lies with the regulators who set the framework which enabled them to do this.

I think you will find many people are having to swallow 6ks worth of lost income via cuts/pay etc.

I dont disagree with the students, but i think their is a huge amount of naivety about how they have conducted their campaign - if anything there is a real opportunity here for the brightest minds of tomorrow to step up to the plate, very few of the student leaders/reps i have seen interviewed have not had the intellectual ability to get their argument across, or put down the politicians.

Explain to me how this is the fault of regulators, please? In my understanding this entire episode is a result of an unregulated financial system (at the request of bankers).

Not in my fucking name you don't. I don't think I'm alone in this either, in fact you might find I'm in the majority.

Minority more likely

and instigated by... maggie thatcher.

a lot of the people who are getting hit by the CGT rises are people who have properties as investiments for their pension and retirement and cant afford tax advisors as you describe. The CGT changes will reduce their expected investment considerably in many cases. I think you are living in lala land

So people who've chosen to speculate on property? These are the new poor or something?

My arse fucking bleeds for them.

I dont disagree with the students, but i think their is a huge amount of naivety about how they have conducted their campaign - if anything there is a real opportunity here for the brightest minds of tomorrow to step up to the plate, but very few of the student leaders/reps i have seen interviewed have not had the intellectual ability to get their argument across, or put down the politicians.

I would have hoped that students could have come up with a more creative way of protesting that would cause as much hassle but less violence.

I am also peeved at the cuts but did nothing - doing something/anything would have been better. I'm glad something happened.

They'll be employing tax consultants to help them dodge as much of it as they can. Which most of the UK population can ill afford to do.

I'm hoping this will help us alot in our offshore h(e)aven.

Explain to me how this is the fault of regulators, please? In my understanding this entire episode is a result of an unregulated financial system (at the request of bankers).

Regulators and Government allowed teh bankers, and the public at large, to live on the wave of a limitless credit boom.

If they had had tighter rules and regulations in place, then we wouldn't have seen this happen.

However tighter rules and regulations don't win votes, and as political parties are more concerned with staying in power, than making any meaningful social change theses days, they tend to come up with short term policy to ensure power, than long term policies encouraging social and financial stability

If anyone out there with too many houses is pissed off because they're not going to make as much money as they thought they would, I'll take one off there hands.

Not two though. Then I'd be not making as much money as I would have before taxes go up. Or something.

Regulators and Government allowed teh bankers, and the public at large, to live on the wave of a limitless credit boom.

If they had had tighter rules and regulations in place, then we wouldn't have seen this happen.

However tighter rules and regulations don't win votes, and as political parties are more concerned with staying in power, than making any meaningful social change theses days, they tend to come up with short term policy to ensure power, than long term policies encouraging social and financial stability

So the regulators are to blame because they weren't regulating enough. And this is because of political interference, which was coming from political parties who were going for the populist vote (because everyone loves deregulation)?

Remind us all who appoints the regulators again?

Hippy.

the banks?

The government actively encouraged investment in property, in order to stimulate the housing market, and the financial sector - they provide specific tax breaks in order to enable this, and still do, which means it is still incredibly easy to buy an investment property on a large mortgage, but very difficult to buy your first proper on a manageable mortgage .

fsa was a puppet self regulation organisation so the bankers could do as they pleased

So the regulators are to blame because they weren't regulating enough. And this is because of political interference, which was coming from political parties who were going for the populist vote (because everyone loves deregulation)?

To a point yes, except they were pandering to the economic big fish who fill the party coffers, and fund campaigns, which then enable them to sell to us how we have never had it better in a media blitz.

To a point yes, except they were pandering to the economic big fish who fill the party coffers, and fund campaigns, which then enable them to sell to us how we have never had it better in a media blitz.

So, it was the money from big business that was encouraging political parties to keep their hands off regulation? Big businesses like, I don't know, banks?

Those same big businesses who have ex-cabinet ministers as their non-executive directors?

So people who've chosen to speculate on property? These are the new poor or something?

My arse fucking bleeds for them.

i wasn't saying they were poor but that they would be significantly poorer in a lump sum way under the new CGT proposals.

Students however will have 9k per annum fees which can be paid off over a lifetime and only after earning above a 21k threshold.

I was just making the comparison. You were the one making spurious claims that the CGT people could afford tax advisors to get round the tax. I am disputing it.

I disagree. You're right, they can pay it off as long as it takes them. However, they are being asked to pay off 18k for three years of experience.

They are being asked to pay 18k for an education of that will - in most cases - see them in better / higher paid jobs, this is of course option, no one is making higher education / fee paying mandatory.

This sum will be paid back when and if the graduates can afford to do so, not immediately, perhaps not for many years, in some case never, and when or if they do cross the threshold of earnings the repayments will in no way be demanded in full, but rather paid off over time in smaller instalments.

I am not sure you can compare a hypothetical imposition (and presumably non-optional) charge of 18k with an optional and highly beneficial college education with fees being paid back over a prolonged period with various safeguards in place for those who are unable to pay it back - (earnings related thresholds and the outright cancellation of the debt after a set time and so on).

I agree that the non-optional immediate imposition of a 18k tax of some kind that needs to be paid by everyone and in one go wouldn't go down very well, but I can't see how it compares that well - as an example of how troubling this is for many students - to tuition fees.

i wasn't saying they were poor but that they would be significantly poorer in a lump sum way under the new CGT proposals.

Students however will have 9k per annum fees which can be paid off over a lifetime and only after earning above a 21k threshold.

I was just making the comparison. You were the one making spurious claims that the CGT people could afford tax advisors to get round the tax. I am disputing it.

They are different things. Apples and oranges. One is on profit, the other is not. One is a fee, the other is a tax.