Nick Clegg espouses two ideas from this blog on the leader’s debate.
The first is an extra 10% tax on banks.
The second is to make sure this is paid irrespective of the losses they have incurred in the past.
He’s right.
And in contrast Cameron wants to reduce their tax rate.
How can Cameron think he will manage the economy if he can’t even get this right?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Brown has lost this badly
But there wouldn’t be so much of a problem if social housing hadn’t been sold off.
My parents were proud of their starting off house.
All of that generation were.
We are two generations down, nearly three, within a society that doesn’t care about itself. All this balls about immigrants won’t fix anything.
This country was able to build itself up with a massive debt and no man power due to a generation of wars. We have the rich poncing about the place thinking they own it. They probably do.
Let’s get real.
The wealth is definitely there. Christ, Clegg is even talking about it as I type.
They’re owned offshore you twonks.
Make some rules
…proud of starting off from housing estates…”
I thought Cameron was proposing to cut corporation tax on all businesses and impose a special levy on banks. Isn’t that materially different to “reducing their tax rate”?