British Election 2015 Results (Al Gore, McCain, wage, legal)

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by Kibby

The Mirror has the best of the Apocalypse articles, the BBC is a close second. This was supposed to be an almost slam-dunk for the Leftists - the British Press is in deep Mourning.

General Election 2015: Be VERY afraid as the Nightmare on Downing Street is about to begin |Mirror

The Polls were wrong, the Press was wrong - turns out that the Voters didn't agree with either. I saw some of the same thing in the recent election in Israel. Polls and Press predicted a Netanyahu loss - both of these elections could have just scared people into actually going to vote. The Press (and Pundits) does a lot better job in the USA of talking people into just staying home and letting the Leftists win in the Presidential elections - they fail in the by-elections and then are duly "shocked".

This is what is interesting here. We see this routinely in our country as well. Sure, they get close from time to time. But the pollsters are substantially wrong even more often.

Now there will be a referendum on leaving the EU, which could undermine the strength of the UKIP movement, whatever the result of that referendum might be. That is one of the most important consequences of this election and a subject that will be endlessly debated in the UK over the next two years, as the referendum is expected to take place in 2017.

[Camlon]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

With the level of spending and tax rates they have and welfare programs, universal health care system, etc, yes, in US standards he would be very liberal.

Up to 45% income tax + 12% national insurance.......how conservative.....

The national insurance has a cap, and is similar to social security tax in the US.

The income tax is actually higher than 45% in liberal states. US got a top marginal rate of 40%, and the state tax tend to be about 9-13%. 49-53% is higher than 45%, and UK conservatives want to reduce it to 40%.

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

People need to understand that Conservatives in Great Briton and Europe would be considered Liberals in the US.

Originally Posted by Prytania

American here who just capping off the night (er morning) working with the Conservatives. Most Tories say they are a bit like Blue Dog Democrats, not the present Republican Party.
The GOP is more akin to UKIP and the DUP in Northern Ireland if I had to make a comparison

A common myth, but not really true.

Lets go through some policies.
Minimum wage:
Democrats: 40% increase in mimum wage
Republicans: No increase in minimum wage
Conervatives: Increase minimum wage with inflation

Taxes:
Democrats: Prefer around 50 - 55% tax on high income (need to include state taxes)
Republicans; Prefer around 35% tax on income (no state income tax and Bush rates)
Conservatives: Prefer 40% tax on high income

Unions:
Democrats: Get a lot of support from the unions
Republicans: Want to crush the unions
Conservatives: Want to reduce the power of unions.

Immigration:
Democrats: Give illegal immigrants amnesty
Reoublicans: Kick illegal immigrants out
Conservatives: Reduce immigration

etc.

Europe is not all left wing, especially not the UK. The conservative party would be considered huge RINOs by the republicans, but the Democrats wouldn't even consider them.

The statement that conservatives in the US are liberals in Europe is more true for countries like Denmark and Germany. And is especially true for countries like France and Sweden.

[Icy Tea]

I'm skeptical of polls being wrong and " surprise" wins. I think elections are going the way TPTB want them to go and actual votes somehow get counted to come up with the results desired.
Neither party gets cheated since both benefit in a seesaw take turn fashion and both parties work for the same people.. But the people get cheated, every time.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

With spending cuts and tax relief? No.

Spending cuts and tax relief are possible within a good economy or when you genuinely believe that the tax levels are to high. I dont think anyone disagrees with that sentiment.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Camlon

The national insurance has a cap, and is similar to social security tax in the US.

The income tax is actually higher than 45% in liberal states. US got a top marginal rate of 40%, and the state tax tend to be about 9-13%. 49-53% is higher than 45%, and UK conservatives want to reduce it to 40%.

No it isnt.

You pay with in your bracket, not on total income.

the brackets are

9,225 = 10%
9,226 to 37,450 =15%
37,451 to 90,750 =25%
90,751 to 189,300 = 28%
189,301 to 411,500 = 33%
411,501 to 413,200 = 35%
413,201 and above at =39.6

for example, if you made 30,000, you dont pay 15% on all your income, just on the amount over 9,226. Below that, you pay 10%.

Further more, your argument hinges on WHO pays those rates, not simply if they exist as you are arguing the whole of the subject.

The majority of americans dont pay the top tax rate,they pay the 25%,15% and 10%, that means they dont even come close to the 45% of the UK even when you include state taxes.


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

you made a very flawed argument.

A common myth, but not really true.

Lets go through some policies.
Minimum wage:
Democrats: 40% increase in mimum wage
Republicans: No increase in minimum wage
Conservatives: Increase minimum wage with inflation

actually, Democrats are proposing a 29% increase(to 10.10) in minimum wage, not 40%, but if Democrats had asked for a gain in minimum wage based on inflation and had done so in say 2009( the last time it was raised) the minimum wage would actually be over 12 dollars. Meaning the Conservatives are actually asking for more, not less than the Democrats, negating your point.

Taxes:
Democrats: Prefer around 50 - 55% tax on high income (need to include state taxes)
Republicans; Prefer around 35% tax on income (no state income tax and Bush rates)
Conservatives: Prefer 40% tax on high income

I have already proven this wrong on the above, the top tax bracket in the US in total pays about 25% after deductions.

Unions:
Democrats: Get a lot of support from the unions
Republicans: Want to crush the unions
Conservatives: Want to reduce the power of unions

.

Here you are arguing different context.

Support for unions does not tell the action you for or against them. Now obviously democrats are pro union, but i was just pointing out the fact that you did not in anyway mention that in context but argued something totally different.

Further more, You need to explain the context of unions in the UK before arguing reduction of powers. If the Unions in the UK are vastly more powerful than that of the UK, then a reduction in power there is not the same as wanting to reduce their power here.

Immigration:
Democrats: Give illegal immigrants amnesty
Reoublicans: Kick illegal immigrants out
Conservatives: Reduce immigration

The Democrats have never offered Amnesty for illegals in this nation, but on the premise that you falsely speak of, Republicans are pro immigration reform as well, negating the point you are trying to make.

Europe is not all left wing, especially not the UK. The conservative party would be considered huge RINOs by the republicans, but the Democrats wouldn't even consider them.

That statement that conservatives in the US are liberals in Europe is more true for countries like Denmark and Germany. And is especially true for countries like France and Sweden

Again, your fundamental understanding of politics, local issues, and the differences in levels of governance seem to be lacking. What you attempted to argue here failed miserably.

[Camlon]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

No it isnt.

You pay with in your bracket, not on total income.

the brackets are

9,225 = 10%
9,226 to 37,450 =15%
37,451 to 90,750 =25%
90,751 to 189,300 = 28%
189,301 to 411,500 = 33%
411,501 to 413,200 = 35%
413,201 and above at =39.6

Next time I reccomend you to read my text. In the US you got something called State income tax. State income tax is added on top of the federal income tax.

For instance in the liberal stronghold of California. 39.6% + 13.3% = 52.9%

for example, if you made 30,000, you dont pay 15% on all your income, just on the amount over 9,226. Below that, you pay 10%.

Thats the case in UK as well.

actually, Democrats are proposing a 29% increase(to 10.10) in minimum wage, not 40%,

10.1 / 7.25 = 39.3%.
7.25 * 1.29 = 9.35

If you don't know maths, then you should just assume everyone else calculations is right,

I have already proven this wrong on the above, the top tax bracket in the US in total pays about 25% after deductions.

Yes, and after deductions UK rich also pay a lot less than 45%.

Here you are arguing different context.

Further more, You need to explain the context of unions in the UK before arguing reduction of powers. If the Unions in the UK are vastly more powerful than that of the UK, then a reduction in power there is not the same as wanting to reduce their power here.

Now, you are proving you don't understand politics. The conservative party in the UK, is not going to change position because the labour unions lose power.

Politics is dynamic. For instance the conservative party want to cut spending and reduce taxes, and if they achieve their goals to 2020 and get relected. Then I can promise you, they will promise to reduce the taxes and cut spending even more.

The Democrats have never offered Amnesty for illegals in this nation, but on the premise that you falsely speak of, Republicans are pro immigration reform as well, negating the point you are trying to make.

Except when Obama just did that with an executive order. The executive order can be revoked, but it probably won't. Democrats want to give amnesty so much, that they choose to bypass the congress to do so. That is telling.

And that some Republicans support amnesty, make your argument weaker.

Again, your fundamental understanding of politics, local issues, and the differences in levels of governance seem to be lacking. What you attempted to argue here failed miserably.

And here comes the personal attacks. So pathetic!

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Camlon

The national insurance has a cap, and is similar to social security tax in the US.

The income tax is actually higher than 45% in liberal states. US got a top marginal rate of 40%, and the state tax tend to be about 9-13%. 49-53% is higher than 45%, and UK conservatives want to reduce it to 40%.

Where a UK person pays 45%, a US person pays 33%. State tax is voluntary in the sense that you can choose to live in States which do not collect it. I pay zero.

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

I'm skeptical of polls being wrong and " surprise" wins. I think elections are going the way TPTB want them to go and actual votes somehow get counted to come up with the results desired.
Neither party gets cheated since both benefit in a seesaw take turn fashion and both parties work for the same people.. But the people get cheated, every time.

One of the polls (the on-line that predicted the Leftist win) was based on Social Media with a guess of 68% of the youth voting. That just didn't happen - real people turned out to vote, not the Social Media crowd.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Camlon

Next time I reccomend you to read my text. In the US you got something called State income tax. State income tax is added on top of the federal income tax.

For instance in the liberal stronghold of California. 39.6% + 13.3% = 52.9%

You clearly read my entire post and realized that I mentoned your flawed argumend about state taxes further down, so im confused as to why you posted this opening statement as if I didnt, unless you actually responded as you read down the page, in that case, next time, read the whole thing before responding.

And again, no one actually pays 39% on their entire taxable income, the link I gave you shows how much people pay with both tax rates and after deductions, its closer to 25% for the top rates, not 39%,

so at best with California, its 25% + 13% =38

Thats the case in UK as well.

yea, you read in pieces.

10.1 / 7.25 = 39.3%.
7.25 * 1.29 = 9.35

If you don't know maths, then you should just assume everyone else calculations is right,

I know math, i was just typing and calculating fast and did 7.25 as a percentage of 10.10 instead of as an increase, still doesnt negate the bigger point which is that the UK Conservatives are actually asking for a bigger increase than the US Democrats.

You completely ignored that even though it was the focus of that section of your post.

Yes, and after deductions UK rich also pay a lot less than 45%.

So how much do they pay, thats the part you need to be posting.

Now, you are proving you don't understand politics. The conservative party in the UK, is not going to change position because the labour unions lose power.

is their argument to completely get rid of Unions, because even you didnt say that in your initial post, you simply said reduce power.

is their not a point to which they would say the Unions are "ok" ????

Politics is dynamic. For instance the conservative party want to cut spending and reduce taxes, and if they achieve their goals to 2020 and get relected. Then I can promise you, they will promise to reduce the taxes and cut spending even more.

their is a point to which cutting taxes starts to harm a nation just as cutting to many jobs causes a company to function below its reasonable efficiency Even the Conservative Party knows that

Except when Obama just did that with an executive order. The executive order can be revoked, but it probably won't. Democrats want to give amnesty so much, that they choose to bypass the congress to do so. That is telling.
And that some Republicans support amnesty, make your argument weaker.

The executive order is an argument of procedure, not a disagreement with the action itself. You are again changing the argument. Im not sure at this point of whether you are doing it on purpose of if you simply dont understand that they are not the same.

Further more, the executive Order does not give amnesty. I understand you are against the order, and that is fine, but we should be able to debate issues without sensationalizing them.

And how does the fact that republicans including, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz are pro immigration reform , hurt my argument ????

And here comes the personal attacks. So pathetic!

Do you not define calling someone "pathetic" a personal attack ???????

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Cameron would be considered a communist in US.

That is absurd.

Originally Posted by mountainrose

WOW - our Republicans could learn a lot from this election to help them win in '16. Cameron has really turned UK around but is also moderate on social issues and pro-environment. No one thought the liberals would lose by this much.

Do we have any Republicans running that can match his governing style?

Quote -"While Cameron is a moderate conservative – pro-gay marriage, pro-European Union and committed to environmental issues -- he nonetheless has led a quiet revolution, implementing spending cuts while ushering in moderate tax relief across the board (including an 8 percent cut in corporation tax), and creating a strong economy. The result was what many economists called “a jobs miracle,” hailed as a success story even by the left-leaning International Monetary Fund."

Why the UK election matters to Americans | Fox News

I think you are right.

Republicans should back their smaller government beliefs by choosing to get the government out of gay marriage. Do some more for the environment and then institute some Fiscal Conservative policies that have majority support in the US.