Tiny fall in jobless doesn't mask fact that economy is still the big issue, says MP Jon Ashworth

“So tell me who was it who sold off all our gold reserves.”

“Quote: "Give me strength!"

garyb2011, I am perfectly well aware that the current threshold is £150,000.

I am perfectly well aware that I was suggesting increasing it to £250,000.

And I am perfectly well aware that I was suggesting increasing the tax above 45% from that limit.

It's a pity you were not. Though I am not surprised.

And your part sentence "but 250,000 is more than 100,000 which means that your 'plan' would result in less wealthy people paying a higher rate of tax" is nonsensical.

But I remain patient with your inadequacies.”

“Bob

Insult me as much as you like but 250,000 is more than 100,000 which means that your 'plan' would result in less wealthy people paying a higher rate of tax. So if I were to earn 200,000 I would currently pay the higher rate but under under your plan I would not.

Get it?

A threshold is the point where the rate applies.

Give me strength!”

“garyb again you are being quite hysterical.

My suggesting a tax threshold of 10 times the average wage, about £250,000, is based on fairness, a quality you do not possess. It is not based on what some politician may or may not have said. Your reply, like many others is hurriedly thought through though slightly better presented than others. But it does show your level of childish incompetence.

And it is also yourself that believes that Public = Bad and Companies = Good. That is why you attempt to squirm your way out of your nonsensical situation by claiming that the Army is not a Public Service, which quite plainly it is as it is paid for by taxpayers.

As I clearly stated "Whereas too many private companies are not (good); G4S being one"

Nobody in their right mind would equate this to what you are trying to claim. That too many are not good obviously means that lots are good, but not enough. We only have to watch the news or indeed 'Rip off Britain' to understand that.

Perhaps you are merely attempting to divert attention away from one of UK's least competent politicians (according to the recent polls), the Con boy Osborne.”

“Bob

I've worked out why you get so many negative arrows. Partly it is due to people showing that they disagree with you but partly you have no ability to acknowledge when you get it wrong.

I demonstrated that your tax idea was so badly thought through that it would result in less 'overly wealthy' people paying tax because you were suggesting that the tax threshold be increased!

Equate the Armed Forces with people such as Planning Officers, Social Workers or Street Cleaners if you wish but by doing so you lose even more creditability.

It is clear that you believe that Public = Good and Companies = Bad. Your use of the phrase 'private companies' is interesting though - are there any other types? As I have said before though, good or bad there is no public sector without the businesses that pay for it through the tax on their profits or the tax paid by those that work for them - or do you think that money grows on trees?”

“garyb now you are being ridiculous.

I know perfectly well what I said, and yes I meant increased tax payable for those earning over ten times the average wage which you somehow managed to work out was £250,000. Well done, you got something right at least.

I quote: "They are highly motivated, will work any hours it takes to do the job, do not need allowances and overtime and do not go on strike. They are not in it for the money, do not take endless days off sick or feel that that the rest of us owe them a living." Here you have summed me up beautifully.

But as I correctly stated, the army is a public service and a very good one, as most of them are. Whereas too many private companies are not; G4S being one of those which likes to take the money but not to take the responsibility.”

“Bob

I like your idea to raise tax for those who earn ten times the average salary by the way. So you only will have to pay the additional rate if you earn £250,000 rather than the current £150,000 thus REDUCING the number of 'over wealthy' who pay the rate! Ha ha ha - financially illiterate - you must be Ed Balls and I claim my £5!

You are way out of your depth - I'd quit if I were you.

But as you have asked me a direct question I will answer it rather than following your example.

G4S did an appalling job with the Olympics.
Thats - G4S did an appalling job with the Olympics.
To be clear - G4S did an appalling job with the Olympics.

OK - see that? It's called answering a question.

I think that the Army did a fantastic job although trying to link them to the Public Sector is stretching the point way too far although there are many who could learn from them. After all, the men & women who join the armed forces potentially are prepared to lay down their lives for us. They are highly motivated, will work any hours it takes to do the job, do not need allowances and overtime and do not go on strike (and would not even if they could). They are not in it for the money, do not take endless days off sick or feel that that the rest of us owe them a living.

You would have more credibility if you could acknowledge failings when they occur (particularly of the Party you support) but if it comforts you to stick with the class war argument good luck. My suggestion is research the facts before you leap into complicated issues.

Reduce tax for the wealthy says Bob - Jeez what a turnaround.”

“Quote: "Get the pain out of the way quickly"

Well even garyb believes the Con boy Osborne has failed. But unfortunately, he seems to think that more of the same will improve matters. It won't, it will only make things even worse - just ask the Greeks! In this case two wrongs will never make a right, it will just make it even more wrong.

As you say, by not having a credible plan to reduce the deficit Osborne has found very quickly that the markets and businesses have lost confidence. That is one reason why he has prevented growth in the UK. Unfortunately without growth there is no prospect of reducing the deficit.

Unless of course he ensures that all over wealthy individuals and big businesses pay their taxes as they should. That would raise many more £billions in tax and cut the deficit quickly. But I guess if he did that they wouldn't pour money into Con Party funds, now would they.

Personally I would increase the top rate of tax, but only for incomes in excess of ten times the average wage. I believe in fairness and honesty, which is why I am anti Con - they are neither fair nor honest, and at the moment they are quite incompetent too. They are making a right mess of the economy, except for their already over wealthy friends and party donors who are favoured big time.

By the way garyb, how do you rate the performance of G4S in providing Olympic Security? And if you think it performed badly, then why was that? Do you think that well known public service, the army, did a far better job than a private company would have?”

“Oh Bob

In your rabid anti-Governement ramblings you seem to lose the ability to read. Your narrative is very much the line followed by the Liebour party in which all was going great before the last election and it's all gone wrong since. In your desperate efforts to find any comments that your support your view you end up heading into areas that you clealry do not understand.

For example QE started under Liebour. I guess that was good in your eyes - yet now it is now bad because it's not a Liebour Governement in charge? The fact is that you will struggle to find any common view on the actual impact - the economic condidtions we find ourselves in are unique.

Your concern for pensioners is touching although clearly my points about the rape of pension funds by Gordon Brown doeas not fit your narrative (or was it that you found that I was absolutely correct when you Googled it?)

As for what Osborne - again you fail to give reasons. You say that 'I have stated that time and time again' but the point is your have not. You simply state that he is doing a bad job but cannot suggest any alternative solution. You suggest 'Green energy' whatever that is.

So although I offered you many opportunities to aks me what I think about the Chancellor you failed to ask - a typical Liebour response. So keen to so whats wrong - unable or unwilling to say what they would do.

Chancellors have limited scope to change the direction of the economy in the short term. They do not sit in No 11 Downing Street pulling levers and pressing buttons that instantly impact on the day to day performance. The economy is like a huge oil tanker - any turn of the wheel takes a long time to redirect the ship.

Chancellors can make decisions that have immediate impact. By not having a credible plan to reduce the defict he can find very quickly that the markets lose confidence and interest rates rise. The only good thing about QE is that it helps keep interest rates low which is a boost to those with a mortgage for example. Of course savers suffer but when did Liebour ever care about them?

It takes a long time for a Chancellor to have any real impact - after all it took Libour 13 years to finally stuff the economy but they got there in the end as they always do

Where I do take issue with Mr Osborne is the cut in top rate tax to 45%. Of course the 50% rate was brought in by Liebour as a political trap (and revealed their cynical traits). He should have left it untouched until after the next election. However, when it is removed it should be removed completely.

The only other issue I have is that he has not been brave enough. He should have slashed the Public Sector and reduced taxes for all. Get the pain out of the way quickly and we can all move on.”

“As I said, the quantitative easing scheme has pushed up share and bond prices, boosting the value of the wealth of thousands of the country's wealthiest households. The top 10 per cent each benefited from an increase in the value of their assets by an average of £129,000.

This really is quite astonishing as it comes in addition to tax rates being reduced by 5% for those already over wealthy who actually pay tax as they should, instead of avoiding paying it on top of rapidly increasing pay and bonuses for top earners. With their vast earning from rapidly rising property rents, they are raking it in under the Cons, aren't they.

The fact that the Bank of England supports QE is no surprise. But many disagree with their conclusions. And as we know only too well, the Bank is often wrong (as is the Con boy Osborne), especially when forecasting future growth figures.

So I quote: There is precious little evidence that QE is actually working to boost the economy. But there is plenty of evidence that it is having a dreadful impact on pensions and pension funds. It is causing suffering to savers and pensioners who were in no way responsible for the problem of over-indebtedness and irresponsible lending and borrowing that caused the mess in the first place.

But garyb, do point out what the Treasury Select Committee thinks about it all.

As for what Osborne is doing wrong, I have stated that time and time again. Unfortunately your comprehension skills are even worse than your spelling. You must be about the only person left in this country that considers Osborne is doing a good job. I guess our dishonest PM doesn't either, but hasn't the courage to sack him.

With UK debt going up, and long term and youth unemployment also going up, inflation too high, growth forced down into prolonged recession by greatly over blown austerity measures, increasing numbers of business failures because the banks refuse to loan them money, food kitchens springing up all over the place because so many haven't the money to feed themselves, many people have never had it so bad, even worse than the previous Con government. The Cons do like their 3 million unemployed, don't they. Soon it will be hospitals forced to close with the public sector, including the army, brought in to prop up the system when private companies go belly up like G4S.

And I haven't even mentioned Osborne's last failed budget which he has been forced to back track on time and time again. He should be investing in Green energy projects, but that's another story.”