What scares me about the left wing attitude in general appears to me to be all about spending money they haven't got...
Its me and my children that will be affected by spending beyond their means, whereas the people who want to share out all the money never seem to want to give anything of their own up considering the overspending policies their favoured government represent.
In this I would actually include the current government, in my opinion this government has done well to increase the tax free limit but it wasnt enough.
Taxing businesses is just an indirect tax on people so some kind of nationally enforced payrise for all and the abolition of corporation tax but with a proportional increase to minimum wage. IMO It appears harder to avoid tax as an employee than a business owner but this could keep balance with the increases while hopefully making the country attractive to businesses.
Simplification in these sort of ways could reduce spending to a degree that increased private sector businesses employing people would increase taxes and hopefully we could get some stability and growth back...
Whereas if we keep just spending more it will no doubt bite my generation or possibly my childrens if it takes that long, but i assure you there will be a much bigger problem down thw line if we keep borrowing... and i dont even need a degree in econimics to figure that out
It's comments like this which proves that he doesn't have the first clue about economics!!
Just as long as you are on the receiving end and contributing zero to the whole redistribution game, eh?
So money really does grow on trees?
And what about the Left wing politicians that are finally recognising the need to reduce spending, and that the (currently minor) cuts are inevitable??
Right on comrade!I assume that your own, taxpayer funded, houses will be safe from this state robbery??
45% tax plus NI plus other taxes is in no way 'ludicrously low' if you are on the receiving end, but you wouldn't know about that, what with you being a net taker from the system, rather than a net contributor...

Given the support UKIP have in the polls at the moment, why should he NOT be included?! Click to expand... Does appear to be disproportionate from these figures ...
Why is Nigel Farage on Question Time so often?
Except he is a representative of that party. Better to show how many times labour, conservative and lib Dems appeared. If it has been screaming lord sutch then he could be the only one represented in a party of one. 14 times is about a third.
I'd prefer to see figures which showed appearances by party.I doubt then they would show UKIP gets any over-representation on QT.
Ah great minds think alike 
...he looks like an animated character from the Simpsons.
UKIP now gets a quarter of the vote and is sometimes second or third place in elections so is outdoing the big three regularly enough that it should have some representation. UKIP could provide other people each time but I guess they prefer to keep sending him so it appears he is on a lot.
If David Cameron, Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband had appeared three times this year, their counterparts would be understandably furious.
Why exactly? Too busy? What? For what reason are the parties putting various MPs on? Worried about over exposure?
If UKIP is to be fairly represented, give some of the B-team a chance (the party has 11 MEPs), rather than simply booking the star striker.
Why? To use the analogy I'd prefer to see the star striker.
Which one doesn't these days, at least he has a bit of fire in his belly unlike Milliband.