Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Well done, you’ve named literally all of them!
Of the three, Khan clearly had the smallest national profile before becoming London mayor. And yet seems to attract a vast amount of criticism from people who never go near the place. Quite odd really.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
You have just reminded me. Those you are advocating for will get their social care paid for when they need it - I won’t. So your plan is sting me for even more tax now and catch me again later. Why on earth would anyone bother?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What the fuck are you on about? My “plan” is to raise taxes across a broad base and spend them now on improved social care. Sorry to say you didn’t come into my thinking once.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t have expected me to come into your thinking. You have a very narrow range of people you would like to benefit with an even narrower range of how to achieve that. Fuck anyone else. I certainly wouldn’t trust the current government to do the right thing if they raised any additional funds. It would be pissed up the wall. Probably the same for any of the fucking political class.
I have paid, and continue to pay, shed loads of tax and yet have still had to pay for private healthcare. Cataracts, hernia repair, dentistry. True my current and probably very expensive treatment is being provided by NHS.
I have paid enough tax and have reached a point where I am beginning to wonder what the point of it all was. Do we not already pay tax across a broad base? Fuel, clothes, accommodation, travel, leisure activities, holidays, education, breathing.
Keep your bright ideas to yourself.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’ve not paid enough tax to cover your retirement I’m afraid. And more to the point as that’s how it actually works I’m currently not paying enough tax to cover your retirement. And the next generation won’t pay enough to cover mine.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
And that’s one of the main points I’ve been making:
As the birth rate has fallen, the balance between working age people contributing to the system and people needing to take more than they contribute from the system has skewed.
Rather than the Government be honest with citizens and say:
-We’ve a reducing workforce so
a) you’ll have to work longer
b) more young people need to do on-the-job vocational training rather than go to uni
c) we need working age migrants to balance the books
d) we need to correct the birth rate to sustain the system
Rather than say that, we get “Rwanda” and “smash the gangs”.
It’s taking the population for fools.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
On a human level, that’s awful and no one should be anything but compassionate towards anyone diagnosed with cancer.
Given his position and the level of testing available to him, It’s surprising that it’s not been picked up far earlier.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Then there is Kim Leadbeater's bill.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
He was in denial about his ill health and fitness to stand as a presidential candidate for quite some time.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Not intended for money saving purposes.Then there is Kim Leadbeater's bill.
Haven’t we already been told we need to work longer, and indeed are already doing so. Same re working age migrants.
Really not sure how the birth rate is corrected given how negative younger generations seem to be about life in general. And how is the increased population guaranteed to work and contribute in taxes?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Doesn't go far enough imo. Given that you have to be a mentally competent person with a life expectancy of less than six months how many people will this actually apply to.Then there is Kim Leadbeater's bill.
The far bigger issue is the huge number of people with dementia spending years lying in bed in care homes with zero quality of life. The big eye opener for me when my Dad went in was how many people with dementia are in visible distress day in, day out. I think a lot of people, thanks to how it is portrayed on TV, think of it as people being a bit confused and not knowing who people are which is only one tiny part of it.
I can't imagine there's many people who have been through this and see their loved one end their days in fear and distress that thinks there was any benefit to keeping them alive.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Or we just raise tax a bit. Ultimately that’s all long term stuff. We have workers now so don’t really need to worry about 2060 just yet.
It’s a global issue so not sure migration is a fix. I’m also skeptical of 100 year predictions, anything beyond 5-10 years tends to be mostly guesswork when it involves people’s behaviour. I always think of the panic around horse shit flooding London just before cars came around.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
mmttww
Well-Known Member
Agree with the jist of what you've said. Did notice that "raise taxes" wasn't on the list, though. You don't think there's an argument that having a lower basic rate of income tax now than 25 years ago might have to change?
It was a lazy vote winner for a few elections in a row to knock 1p off basic rate. Maybe time a party was honest and said that has to be unpicked? e.g. no income tax below a Living Wage threshold, then a higher basic rate?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The NI cut has really fucked this govt up. It was as cynical a move as you like that Hunt knew we couldn’t afford and Reeves is stupid to promise to keep it.
I’ve said this before but when you take into account what most Europeans pay in private health insurance is rolled into our taxes then we have very low taxes across the piece.
The fact of tax a lot of people don’t seem to want to grasp is that most of it is raised though IT NI and CT and a small raise across a broad base is far more effective than a large raise across a small base.
There’s no magic taxpayer we can squeeze and leave the majority out. But both sides pretend either we can cut a diversity officer or a magic “wealth tax” will solve everything because they’re scared to tell people their taxes need to rise to fund public services.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
But I’m one of the lucky ones. No one has ever had it as good as my generation.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
You weren’t around then, surely? 1894, The Times.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
There will be dreadful abuses. Just look at Canada.
There are dreadful abuses involved with keeping people alive too.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Raising taxes can have a negative effect on the actual revenue to treasury.
I’ll give a couple of examples:
The reason some corporates (Google Amazon EBay) etc. “flag out” in Eire / Lichtenstein / wherever is that they can supply into a market (the EU or UK) and pay 10% or whatever rather than the country of trade and their tax rate. If Eire were to increase their corp tax rate too much then many tech companies would up sticks and they’d get, say, 20% of much less declared tax.
About 20 years ago many haulage firms used EU rules to “flag out” in Holland and legally get around the then extraordinarily high uk road taxes. Result: UK treasury vastly reduced HGV road tax.
Now, taxing UK non-doms and millionaires has resulted in many leaving the country as a tax base and choosing to pay tax elsewhere.
Reducing the amount of disposable income of individuals by higher taxes often means less consumer spending, particularly in hospitality and big ticket items (cars eg) and actively restricts spending and “churn derived” tax income.
So, I see how easy it is to say “tax the rich / corporations / individuals more” as a solution, but the reality is that it doesn’t work that way.
Quantitative easing (printing more money) creates inflation which is another problem.
Our national debt is huge and the interest we pay on the debt is crippling.
So borrowing to make lives a bit easier is a foolish game unless you want to defaukt the debt-holders at some point. It’s incredible how much debt is owed to Rothschild institutions. Don’t look this up, you’ll go down a rabbit hole.
The most logical solution is to cut government spending.
Reduce the size of government.
Be brave enough to say:
“The sacred NHS is a money pit. Big pharmaceutical corporations are taking the biscuit and decision makers in the NHS are to be looked at. A different style of health service is required. ONE THAT IS FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY TO ALL INCLUDING ILLEGAL MIGRANTS*, but can be measured and streamlined with a degree of competition.”
Now, any dribblers who will come out with “you want to privatise the sacred NHS like your mate Nigel”, just get a grip. Look at the French model and educate yourself.
It’s not just the NHS, the Highways Agency is a joke too. Many others.
*(we have to be able to treat anyone who present themselves to NHS facilities. We can’t have people dying on the floors of AandE because they’ve not got health cover. Just bill them or their country or port of origin afterwards. Dinghy migrants with no passport: bill France and also bill France for their hotels. It’d take some B***s to make it fly - so no chance with Starmer. PS, your UK Global Health Insurance card means foreign nations bill us if we are treated abroad. See how it works?)
In the meantime, Starmer and the economic genius that is Reeve are negotiating idiotic strategies with the EU. We might get through passport control 5 mins quicker and join Erasmus (remember the idiots who thought we had to be EU members to sign up to the program? I remember quizzing Clegg in front of a Uni audience: “how many EU nations? (27) How many countries take part in Erasmus? (34) including non-EU Iceland etc. Right…..
So, raising taxes is a no. They’ve gone after farmers and businesses to the extent of crippling.
You may not agree. Don’t care.
What do you think Sabrina Carpenter will say on the new UK-EU fisheries deal?What do you think the new Pope will say on this.
An unintended by-product of the obsession of getting wealthy through property, which comes back on Thatcher , although the ponzi nature of the property market can't be blamed on her or can it.which brings me to the next point, it's no surprise to me that the next move is to retrieve some or all of it?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's more down to implementation though. But if you want to force people to stay alive against their wishes then you have to budget for the huge economic impact that has.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We've had what, 15 years of austerity that has totally fucked the country. The answer surely can't be keep doing more of the same.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Austerity against big pharma is a different thing.
Big pharmaceutical. Big banking. Insurance scams. Expose the lot
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
mmttww
Well-Known Member
I get it's not good form to come out and say "I've got money and assets which is because I'm amazing and deserve it so no one's having any of it!"
but that doesn't mean the idea of collecting more direct taxes in a reasoned way to fund public services that people depend on is all that mad.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
It’ll be like throwing a hotdog down a corridor.
Fix the leaky bucket rather than turn the tap up.
mmttww
Well-Known Member
a metaphor used to described sub-par sex is a weird one! Is the bucket you're talking about tax avoidance and off-shoring?
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Tax evasion needs to be clamped down on. Legal tax avoidance is another matter. Fix the tax system to create a level playing field and maximise revenue and create investment. That’s the magic formula - what that is exactly is a big question.