ccfcway
Well-Known Member
can they not furlough them ?
Yes, it seems morally wrong that the players are still receiving their full salaries, but staff at some clubs are having to take the 20% pay cut, it should be the other way round.
can they not furlough them ?
I very much enjoyed reading that, thank you
Charities should be for good causes that you couldn't justify spending tax money on, like caring for old donkeys, cats and dogs etc.Because it’s been underfunded to fuck for fucking years. But even even it hadn’t been there should be one anyway. It’s the most important institution in the country.
Because it’s been underfunded to fuck for fucking years. But even even it hadn’t been there should be one anyway. It’s the most important institution in the country.
Pisses me off. Same as school crowdfunders for equipment like we’re sub Saharan Africa or something.
“If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly“ - Clement Attlee, PM who founded the NHS.
I saw Zuckerberg has committed $25m to the coronavirus effort- that’s about 14 hours worth of Facebook revenue ($21billion in one quarter)
Charities should be for good causes that you couldn't justify spending tax money on, like caring for old donkeys, cats and dogs etc.
The NHS should be funded fully so as not to need charity backing.
The richer you are the easier it is to get even richer
I'm pretty uncomfortable with that myself, manna from heaven for the Tories as that's their ideal, a voluntary funded charitable service.Well done and everything. But why the fuck is there an NHS charity?
Isn't the point though is it? It should be fully funded by tax take, if that means paying a bit more tax, particularly the very wealthy and / or spending a bit less on other things then that's what should be happening. Not relying on charity to top it up.Because it’s been underfunded to fuck for fucking years. But even even it hadn’t been there should be one anyway. It’s the most important institution in the country.
Isn't the point though is it? It should be fully funded by tax take, if that means paying a bit more tax, particularly the very wealthy and / or spending a bit less on other things then that's what should be happening. Not relying on charity to top it up.
Isn't the point though is it? It should be fully funded by tax take, if that means paying a bit more tax, particularly the very wealthy and / or spending a bit less on other things then that's what should be happening. Not relying on charity to top it up.
France cases dropped by nearly 3k today.... and the deaths went up by 10, maybe a sign they are starting to flatten?
lOf course you are right.
It goes without saying Hill
This is a great point. Myself and my workmates were talking about this very issue. Every one of us said we'd gladly pay another 5/10% tax to fund the NHS.Isn't the point though is it? It should be fully funded by tax take, if that means paying a bit more tax, particularly the very wealthy and / or spending a bit less on other things then that's what should be happening. Not relying on charity to top it up.
I'm not having a go at you, people can donate to what they like it's just a shame these things existIt’s not a direct NHS charity though tbf. It’s an ‘extra curricular’ charity. Like helping paramedics with ptsd for example. Not a direct NHS fund. Still shouldn’t be needed though tbf.
Problem is it's the same people complaining about lack of funding that bitch about paying too much taxCharities should be for good causes that you couldn't justify spending tax money on, like caring for old donkeys, cats and dogs etc.
The NHS should be funded fully so as not to need charity backing.
I posted this yesterday nick many said was lazy poor journalism on here
This is a great point. Myself and my workmates were talking about this very issue. Every one of us said we'd gladly pay another 5/10% tax to fund the NHS.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
That's an interesting argument however. I mean, does it validate the idea of private healthcare? Does that give government the excuse not to fund state healthcare better?I’d even argue that if people can afford health insurance, BUPA etc, they should be doing that rather than using the NHS.
Yeah, if I could afford for my whole family to have private health insurance, then I'd obviously pay for it. Maybe the extra £45/£50 per week would pay for it.I’ve been beating that drum for years. Including on here.
I’d even argue that if people can afford health insurance, BUPA etc, they should be doing that rather than using the NHS.
It's a very complex story but the basic underlying factor is austerity. This is complemented by the NHS structure e.g. The internal market commissioner / provider split and the bureaucracy it causes, independent Trusts, adoption of 'best practice' from other sectors in relation to procurement that isn't always appropriate. No overarching aggregated capital spending on equipment, majority of Trusts in massive deficit so unable to invest. Haemorrhaging staff due to lack of respect from government demonstrated through real terms pay cuts over 10 years. Trusts spending fortunes on PFI deals.So who’s to blame ?
why are the NHS so far behind ?
Has Boris fucked up ?
Why have our nurses got no PPE to treat their patients etc where is the testing kits etc ?
I’ve been beating that drum for years. Including on here.
I’d even argue that if people can afford health insurance, BUPA etc, they should be doing that rather than using the NHS.
That's how the German system works
So who’s to blame ?
why are the NHS so far behind ?
Has Boris fucked up ?
Why have our nurses got no PPE to treat their patients etc where is the testing kits etc ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?