Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple" I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. " that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not popular but…. The pension age has to rise. Historically people lived on state pensions for 4-6 years, now is over 10 years. Deport all foreign nationals who are in prison. Stop using hotels for asylum seekers, portacabins and bunk beds are fine. That’s better than the torture chamber they claim to be fleeing from. No dependants allowed to be brought in if the new migrant isn’t working and in any case, not for the first couple of years and not if they will be claiming any benefits. Stop the seemingly never ending appeals process with, the translators and the lawyers are milking the system. Immediately deport all the asylum seekers who are working illegally, if they can’t obey laws now they never will. Massive fines for companies they used them. Anyone who claimed asylum from a dictatorship that gets removed should be returned there. Syria for example. Trim the civil service back to pre Covid levels. Take back them bloody islands and/or stop paying rent on them. But if we have to rent it, send all asylum seekers there until their case is heard in say 40 years time. Stop sending aid to any counties that refuses to take their citizens back when we want to deport them. Stop sending aid to countries with a space programs. Get rid of any job role in the public sector that includes the words inclusion and/or diversity. Remove all expenses for MPs and civil servants unless they are overseas on state business. Everyone else has to pay their own travel etc. Introduce a new income tax band for earnings over £250k per year at 50% Set a maximum term for unemployment benefits of say 5 years and they can’t reclaim for another 2 years and then the maximum period of claim is 2 years. Investigate all the “usual suspects” when it comes to PIP and DLA. Bad back, anxiety etc. Require the repayment of all monies in fake claims and never be allowed to claim again. Stop all state funding of nursery places it a parent isnt in work. If we’re paying you to stay at home, the least you can do is look after your own kids. Lower rate corporation tax for overseas companies who relocate their headquarters here if their turnover is over £100 million. This creates jobs and generates tax revenue we didn’t have. 10% levy on international companies worth over say £500 million who want to trade in the UK that don’t pay tax here. I’m thinking Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Google, Meta etc. a licence, whatever, call it what you want but they are extracting billions from the UK and not paying tax here. I’ll put my tin hat on and wait for the onslaught " You would get my vote | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy " Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. " no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever. "Taking a tidy pension only happens in the public sector. Private sector pensions are a fraction of final salary. But promotion is like climbing a pyramid. A medium sized company might have one owner, 5 senior managers. 20 middle managers, 100 junior managers and 1000 workers. In this scenario if a senior manager leaves and the company promotes from within, only 0.1% of the workforce gets the opportunity to climb the ladder. And many small companies don’t have the opportunity of promotion. Take my last employer. There was my boss and 8 staff. Yeah I could leave and get a better paid job, but there was no ladder to climb. 3 of my last 4 jobs were exactly the same. One had 30 odd staff but there was no ladder. 3 admin ran a team of 25 drivers, all 28 on the same pay, with my boss and his sister jointly owning the company. I’m not disagreeing with the principle you’re putting forward, I agree with it. But as another example, the only way a burger flipper at Mackies can become a manager without negatively affecting an existing manager is if a new branch opens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever.
Taking a tidy pension only happens in the public sector. Private sector pensions are a fraction of final salary.
But promotion is like climbing a pyramid. A medium sized company might have one owner, 5 senior managers. 20 middle managers, 100 junior managers and 1000 workers. In this scenario if a senior manager leaves and the company promotes from within, only 0.1% of the workforce gets the opportunity to climb the ladder.
And many small companies don’t have the opportunity of promotion. Take my last employer. There was my boss and 8 staff. Yeah I could leave and get a better paid job, but there was no ladder to climb. 3 of my last 4 jobs were exactly the same. One had 30 odd staff but there was no ladder. 3 admin ran a team of 25 drivers, all 28 on the same pay, with my boss and his sister jointly owning the company.
I’m not disagreeing with the principle you’re putting forward, I agree with it. But as another example, the only way a burger flipper at Mackies can become a manager without negatively affecting an existing manager is if a new branch opens.
"again, very one dimensional. the only thing that stops people from aspiring is lazyness .... and at that point they start to moan about things like lack of oportunity or tax etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever.
Taking a tidy pension only happens in the public sector. Private sector pensions are a fraction of final salary.
But promotion is like climbing a pyramid. A medium sized company might have one owner, 5 senior managers. 20 middle managers, 100 junior managers and 1000 workers. In this scenario if a senior manager leaves and the company promotes from within, only 0.1% of the workforce gets the opportunity to climb the ladder.
And many small companies don’t have the opportunity of promotion. Take my last employer. There was my boss and 8 staff. Yeah I could leave and get a better paid job, but there was no ladder to climb. 3 of my last 4 jobs were exactly the same. One had 30 odd staff but there was no ladder. 3 admin ran a team of 25 drivers, all 28 on the same pay, with my boss and his sister jointly owning the company.
I’m not disagreeing with the principle you’re putting forward, I agree with it. But as another example, the only way a burger flipper at Mackies can become a manager without negatively affecting an existing manager is if a new branch opens.
again, very one dimensional. the only thing that stops people from aspiring is lazyness .... and at that point they start to moan about things like lack of oportunity or tax etc."My point is no more one dimensional than yours. If you’re gonna argue with someone agreeing with you then the conversation is over. 😊 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy " The career ladder is all well and good but remember, the ones looking down see sad faces and the ones looking up see arse holes.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quadruple tax on tobacco and make vapes the same. Put the same duty as tobacco on off license sales of alcohol. Give the pubs a chance. Put the same duty in sugar. Might not make the country richer but certainly healthier " These’s emerging evidence that artificial sugars are absorbed into the body in a way not previously considered. If so, they are no better for you than natural sugar. And Aspartame has been designated as carcinogenic by the WHO so I’m not sure it’s consumption should be encouraged any more than it already is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quadruple tax on tobacco and make vapes the same. Put the same duty as tobacco on off license sales of alcohol. Give the pubs a chance. Put the same duty in sugar. Might not make the country richer but certainly healthier These’s emerging evidence that artificial sugars are absorbed into the body in a way not previously considered. If so, they are no better for you than natural sugar. And Aspartame has been designated as carcinogenic by the WHO so I’m not sure it’s consumption should be encouraged any more than it already is. " Yes, tax it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever.
Taking a tidy pension only happens in the public sector. Private sector pensions are a fraction of final salary.
But promotion is like climbing a pyramid. A medium sized company might have one owner, 5 senior managers. 20 middle managers, 100 junior managers and 1000 workers. In this scenario if a senior manager leaves and the company promotes from within, only 0.1% of the workforce gets the opportunity to climb the ladder.
And many small companies don’t have the opportunity of promotion. Take my last employer. There was my boss and 8 staff. Yeah I could leave and get a better paid job, but there was no ladder to climb. 3 of my last 4 jobs were exactly the same. One had 30 odd staff but there was no ladder. 3 admin ran a team of 25 drivers, all 28 on the same pay, with my boss and his sister jointly owning the company.
I’m not disagreeing with the principle you’re putting forward, I agree with it. But as another example, the only way a burger flipper at Mackies can become a manager without negatively affecting an existing manager is if a new branch opens.
"If its a small company doing well in a sector and there is little to no chance of promotion what is stopping you setting up a competition company and being that boss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quadruple tax on tobacco and make vapes the same. Put the same duty as tobacco on off license sales of alcohol. Give the pubs a chance. Put the same duty in sugar. Might not make the country richer but certainly healthier " Duties on sugar is a given and anything containing sugar in a presentage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quadruple tax on tobacco and make vapes the same. Put the same duty as tobacco on off license sales of alcohol. Give the pubs a chance. Put the same duty in sugar. Might not make the country richer but certainly healthier These’s emerging evidence that artificial sugars are absorbed into the body in a way not previously considered. If so, they are no better for you than natural sugar. And Aspartame has been designated as carcinogenic by the WHO so I’m not sure it’s consumption should be encouraged any more than it already is. " Go back to the 11th century there was no sugar in the UK. Until the 17th / 18th century it was a luxury. Take it back to luxury 1% next April rising by 1% each year there after up to 50% watch brands and items reduce sugar. And tax replacement at the same rate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"get a better paid job .... simple I’d agree with that answer for individuals. But for society as a whole it’s not an answer. No more than 50% can get a better paid job at any given time and that would mean the other 50% are getting a lesser paid job. that's nonsense ... climb the ladder and make room on the rungs below you for others to get on and start climbing instead of being lazy Again, I agree entirely. But unless new jobs are being created and that’s just not happening at the moment, for a middle manager as an example to take a senior managers job, the senior manager has to go somewhere. Possibly retire or sacked for incompetence? So they are now on less money. As I say, individuals can and should do what you suggest, but as one climbs, one falls. Everyone can’t be a manager. no they don't .... as one climbs one retires early and steps off the ladder with a tidy pension making plenty of room for other to get on and keep climbing. this is how it's always been .... since forever.
Taking a tidy pension only happens in the public sector. Private sector pensions are a fraction of final salary.
But promotion is like climbing a pyramid. A medium sized company might have one owner, 5 senior managers. 20 middle managers, 100 junior managers and 1000 workers. In this scenario if a senior manager leaves and the company promotes from within, only 0.1% of the workforce gets the opportunity to climb the ladder.
And many small companies don’t have the opportunity of promotion. Take my last employer. There was my boss and 8 staff. Yeah I could leave and get a better paid job, but there was no ladder to climb. 3 of my last 4 jobs were exactly the same. One had 30 odd staff but there was no ladder. 3 admin ran a team of 25 drivers, all 28 on the same pay, with my boss and his sister jointly owning the company.
I’m not disagreeing with the principle you’re putting forward, I agree with it. But as another example, the only way a burger flipper at Mackies can become a manager without negatively affecting an existing manager is if a new branch opens.
If its a small company doing well in a sector and there is little to no chance of promotion what is stopping you setting up a competition company and being that boss. "I guess that would depend on the business. Most businesses need some start up capital. There could be licence requirements. Premises to source and finance. All sorts But being in business isn’t about doing the job it’s about getting the work in the first place. 50% of all new startups fail in the first two years and the figure rises to 80% within 5 years. Usually because they know fuck all about marketing but there are other factors | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only thing that stops people from aspiring is lazyness .... and at that point they start to moan about things like lack of opportunity or tax etc." I would counter that with aspiration is not always a good thing. Many aspire beyond their capabilities, and then cause issues. My friend works in a biscuit factory on the production line. He's been making custard creams since he was 18. He's 51 now. He is in the same role today essentially as he was when he was 18. He said to me "I've been offered team leader, shift manager and goodness knows what else. All with an extra few pence an hour. The problem is, I know I am good at what I do. I am happy doing what I do. I like doing what I do. If I move to another role, will I be happy ? Will my loss affect the line ? Will be be promoted beyond my capabilities and be miserable ? That serves no one. I'll be on this line until I retire making the best custard creams I can. And that makes me happy at work. Few ever are." . And I thought to myself, "Well, he does have a point and a good one at that". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only thing that stops people from aspiring is lazyness .... and at that point they start to moan about things like lack of opportunity or tax etc. I would counter that with aspiration is not always a good thing. Many aspire beyond their capabilities, and then cause issues. My friend works in a biscuit factory on the production line. He's been making custard creams since he was 18. He's 51 now. He is in the same role today essentially as he was when he was 18. He said to me "I've been offered team leader, shift manager and goodness knows what else. All with an extra few pence an hour. The problem is, I know I am good at what I do. I am happy doing what I do. I like doing what I do. If I move to another role, will I be happy ? Will my loss affect the line ? Will be be promoted beyond my capabilities and be miserable ? That serves no one. I'll be on this line until I retire making the best custard creams I can. And that makes me happy at work. Few ever are." . And I thought to myself, "Well, he does have a point and a good one at that". " Very true. In direct sales, the best sales person is often promoted to sales manager with disastrous consequences. They lose their best sales person and gain a terrible manager. Double whammy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very true. In direct sales, the best sales person is often promoted to sales manager with disastrous consequences. They lose their best sales person and gain a terrible manager. Double whammy. " I've seen it and witnessed this time and time again across all industries and types of sector. The promotion of competent people in to a position where they become incompetent. Then everyone suffers as a result. For the life of me, there is a book about this and I can't remember the writer, but it was a seminal work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only thing that stops people from aspiring is lazyness .... and at that point they start to moan about things like lack of opportunity or tax etc. I would counter that with aspiration is not always a good thing. Many aspire beyond their capabilities, and then cause issues. My friend works in a biscuit factory on the production line. He's been making custard creams since he was 18. He's 51 now. He is in the same role today essentially as he was when he was 18. He said to me "I've been offered team leader, shift manager and goodness knows what else. All with an extra few pence an hour. The problem is, I know I am good at what I do. I am happy doing what I do. I like doing what I do. If I move to another role, will I be happy ? Will my loss affect the line ? Will be be promoted beyond my capabilities and be miserable ? That serves no one. I'll be on this line until I retire making the best custard creams I can. And that makes me happy at work. Few ever are." . And I thought to myself, "Well, he does have a point and a good one at that". " Couldn't he go over to making Bourbons for a few months? It can't be any more complicated and he would smell of something different for a while. As they say, "A change is as good as a rest"... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quadruple tax on tobacco and make vapes the same. Put the same duty as tobacco on off license sales of alcohol. Give the pubs a chance. Put the same duty in sugar. Might not make the country richer but certainly healthier These’s emerging evidence that artificial sugars are absorbed into the body in a way not previously considered. If so, they are no better for you than natural sugar. And Aspartame has been designated as carcinogenic by the WHO so I’m not sure it’s consumption should be encouraged any more than it already is. Go back to the 11th century there was no sugar in the UK. Until the 17th / 18th century it was a luxury. Take it back to luxury 1% next April rising by 1% each year there after up to 50% watch brands and items reduce sugar. And tax replacement at the same rate." This makes me laugh… do I know how a full on sugar tax wouldn’t work How many of you skip past the “low sugar low salt “ baked means right now!
I rest my case | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The simple truth is that we, as a nation, are living beyond our means. We have a perfect storm of overly generous welfare support, poorly managed government capital expenditure, inefficiently run government enterprises, unfettered immigration and a demographic of sickly and ageing citizens. It sounds a bit Daily Mail-ish I know (I never read it) but nonetheless some stark truths in there. In summary, higher taxes are inevitable." Raising tax is a vicious circle. Governments are always finding more things to spend money on and increasing the spend that we already do. Raising taxes to cover that works for a couple of years then we have the same issue all over again. Before the First World War, gov spending was 11% of gdp, now it’s close to 45%. Ok a big chunk of that is the NHS which didn’t exist back then and people would have had to pay to see a doctor. 40% of all taxes are spent on the NHS and a lot of people think we need to spend more. You hear the phrase “increase income tax by 1% and give it to the NHS”. That would generate £6.9 billion in the 2026-2027 tax year. Labour just threw £29 billion at it and what have we got to show for it? £6.9 billion would make no difference! The beast is too big, it needs chopping into smaller chunks to become more manageable and make it easier to see where savings could be made and where extra funding should be spent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The simple truth is that we, as a nation, are living beyond our means. We have a perfect storm of overly generous welfare support, poorly managed government capital expenditure, inefficiently run government enterprises, unfettered immigration and a demographic of sickly and ageing citizens. It sounds a bit Daily Mail-ish I know (I never read it) but nonetheless some stark truths in there. In summary, higher taxes are inevitable. Raising tax is a vicious circle. Governments are always finding more things to spend money on and increasing the spend that we already do. Raising taxes to cover that works for a couple of years then we have the same issue all over again. Before the First World War, gov spending was 11% of gdp, now it’s close to 45%. Ok a big chunk of that is the NHS which didn’t exist back then and people would have had to pay to see a doctor. 40% of all taxes are spent on the NHS and a lot of people think we need to spend more. You hear the phrase “increase income tax by 1% and give it to the NHS”. That would generate £6.9 billion in the 2026-2027 tax year. Labour just threw £29 billion at it and what have we got to show for it? £6.9 billion would make no difference! The beast is too big, it needs chopping into smaller chunks to become more manageable and make it easier to see where savings could be made and where extra funding should be spent. " Life expectancy prior to WW1 was 50 You had to pay for your health care. Women died in child birth often. If that's your vision for Britain, be honest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happy to fund the NHS, but it is the most inefficient organisation in the UK. Billions could be saved every year if it was run properly. Layer upon layer of management rather than a focus on medical staff. As for aspiration, totally agree that people should work hard, and contribute to society, but there needs to be a balance. Everyone in this country has the same opportunities, but when govt constantly targets those who do aspire and do well for themselves it acts as a disincentive. " "Everyone in this country has the same opportunities". Are you talking about the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, I went to a state school from a working class family, worked hard, went to uni and have done well. Got taught by my parents the values of hard work and treating people well. If you want to succeed it's in your gift to do so. I've paid more tax in my life than I would have ever expected, and don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with, the same as is business is I expect value for money and us taxpayers are not getting that." i agree, there's far too many chancers in business now and all they want is free money and handouts from the taxpayer. these zombie businesspeople are spoiling it for the ligitimate entrepeneurs and rinsing the country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it looks like hard working Britain's are about to get hammered again. We already have the highest tax burden in history. Spending out of control, public services totally inefficient and population growing and ageing. What's the solution? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." Oh how dare you suggest that the rich don't pay for everything and god forbid everyone pay their fair share. Politics of envy where no-one strives to improve, just drags every other fucker back down to the bottom. Sickening | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Autumn budget, am expecting to get royally fucked in the arse, again." We all are. That's what the nations gets for voting into power a party that is economically illiterate and dominated by ideologically driven dreamers with a belief in a magic money tree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happy to fund the NHS, but it is the most inefficient organisation in the UK. Billions could be saved every year if it was run properly." And therein lies the rub. It is just not possible to run a behemoth the size of the NHS efficiently. Nor any other organisation of the same scope or size either. . Complexity breeds inefficiency, and no, it’s not unique to the NHS. The private sector doesn’t magically defy entropy either. . Amazon. Efficient? At logistics, yes. At employee wellbeing, not so much. It’s a machine that delivers packages fast and burns through people like kindling. Optimised for profit, not for humanity. . McDonald’s Streamlined to the point of dystopia. Insanely efficient at serving food that never decomposes. But that’s with a very narrow goal: fry, sell, repeat. Scale alone doesn't make it equivalent to the NHS. . Apple A money-making machine with a mess of internal politics and secrecy. Pretty efficient at marketing innovation and getting you to buy the same phone twelve times. . The U.S. Department of Defense Literally loses track of trillions of dollars. But sure, let's lecture the NHS on spending. . Kaiser Permanente (U.S. healthcare giant) Supposedly a model of integrated care. But again — only efficient in the way a privately-run system can be: it drops people off the coverage list to save money. Shareholders love it. . Want a more efficient NHS? Cool. Fund it properly, don’t restructure it every election cycle, and maybe stop yelling at nurses. . But sure, let’s all blame "the system" for being a system. Revolutionary stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happy to fund the NHS, but it is the most inefficient organisation in the UK. Billions could be saved every year if it was run properly. And therein lies the rub. It is just not possible to run a behemoth the size of the NHS efficiently. Nor any other organisation of the same scope or size either. . Complexity breeds inefficiency, and no, it’s not unique to the NHS. The private sector doesn’t magically defy entropy either. . Amazon. Efficient? At logistics, yes. At employee wellbeing, not so much. It’s a machine that delivers packages fast and burns through people like kindling. Optimised for profit, not for humanity. . McDonald’s Streamlined to the point of dystopia. Insanely efficient at serving food that never decomposes. But that’s with a very narrow goal: fry, sell, repeat. Scale alone doesn't make it equivalent to the NHS. . Apple A money-making machine with a mess of internal politics and secrecy. Pretty efficient at marketing innovation and getting you to buy the same phone twelve times. . The U.S. Department of Defense Literally loses track of trillions of dollars. But sure, let's lecture the NHS on spending. . Kaiser Permanente (U.S. healthcare giant) Supposedly a model of integrated care. But again — only efficient in the way a privately-run system can be: it drops people off the coverage list to save money. Shareholders love it. . Want a more efficient NHS? Cool. Fund it properly, don’t restructure it every election cycle, and maybe stop yelling at nurses. . But sure, let’s all blame "the system" for being a system. Revolutionary stuff." Can I ask what experience you have within the NHS, other than being a patient? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . McDonald’s Streamlined to the point of dystopia. Insanely efficient at serving food that never decomposes. But that’s with a very narrow goal: fry, sell, repeat. . Want a more efficient NHS? ." Ground beef from thousands of animals in every burger. Everything else they sell is a chemical potion 26% adult obesity, 37% uk overweight, people consuming unhealthy fast food. McD’s should be shut down it’s costing the nhs and tax payer a fortune | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . McDonald’s Streamlined to the point of dystopia. Insanely efficient at serving food that never decomposes. But that’s with a very narrow goal: fry, sell, repeat. . Want a more efficient NHS? . Ground beef from thousands of animals in every burger. Everything else they sell is a chemical potion 26% adult obesity, 37% uk overweight, people consuming unhealthy fast food. McD’s should be shut down it’s costing the nhs and tax payer a fortune " Not sure you can blame McDonalds for the obesity crisis. Blame a culture of ready meals rather than cooking, laziness, lack of exercise, convenience (McDs part of that problem). Just another example of a society not working | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . McDonald’s Streamlined to the point of dystopia. Insanely efficient at serving food that never decomposes. But that’s with a very narrow goal: fry, sell, repeat. . Want a more efficient NHS? . Ground beef from thousands of animals in every burger. Everything else they sell is a chemical potion 26% adult obesity, 37% uk overweight, people consuming unhealthy fast food. McD’s should be shut down it’s costing the nhs and tax payer a fortune Not sure you can blame McDonalds for the obesity crisis. Blame a culture of ready meals rather than cooking, laziness, lack of exercise, convenience (McDs part of that problem). Just another example of a society not working " Got to have someone to blame, can't be society's fault | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ground beef from thousands of animals in every burger." Isn't ground beef exactly what's supposed to be in a burger? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can I ask what experience you have within the NHS, other than being a patient?" I don't feel the experience of one person (myself) has any bearing on assessing the state of the NHS as a whole. I doubt even the Chief Exec or Health Minister would have that info either, because the higher up you go, the further removed you are from the institutional failings (and that's even assuming you get to even hear about them in the first place). So in all reality, your question is meaningless because it's too narrow-focussed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can I ask what experience you have within the NHS, other than being a patient? I don't feel the experience of one person (myself) has any bearing on assessing the state of the NHS as a whole. I doubt even the Chief Exec or Health Minister would have that info either, because the higher up you go, the further removed you are from the institutional failings (and that's even assuming you get to even hear about them in the first place). So in all reality, your question is meaningless because it's too narrow-focussed." That's an opinion I disagree with as I'm sure most people would | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." absolutely none | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none" Is that an informed opinion from the RR school of economics? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is that an informed opinion from the RR school of economics?" is that question from yr 5 remedial class? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's an opinion I disagree with as I'm sure most people would " Then explain how the opinion of one person has statistical significance in the grand scheme of things ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is that an informed opinion from the RR school of economics? is that question from yr 5 remedial class?" It's a question you're clearly uncomfortable answering | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none" So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's an opinion I disagree with as I'm sure most people would Then explain how the opinion of one person has statistical significance in the grand scheme of things ? " I don't answer to you...however since you've listed a load of nonsense with no substantiation that I can see, why don't you explain why your singular opinion with no experience of the running of the NHS counts for anything more than that of someone who has a lifetime of experience within said NHS | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't answer to you...however since you've listed a load of nonsense with no substantiation that I can see, why don't you explain why your singular opinion with no experience of the running of the NHS counts for anything more than that of someone who has a lifetime of experience within said NHS " My point is about scale and statistical relevance. Yours is about lived experience and the emotional truth of dealing with healthcare. . It seems we have wandered into that awkward trench between data-driven analysis and the sacred temple of Human Experience™. You are not here for nuance — you're here for vibes and relatable gripes. . In terms of policy, governance, and systemic analysis, your one sad wait in a corridor doesn’t mean much. Anecdotes are not data. You can’t reform a national healthcare system based on one person's bad day at A&E. But I am cognisant that in democracies, public perception is data. If most people feel the NHS is failing, even if their experiences are wildly inconsistent, that sentiment snowballs into pressure, headlines, votes — even policy shifts. It’s irrational, messy, and deeply human. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that Starmer and Labour are somehow on the far-left. The Overton window has shifted to the right and Labour now more or less occupies the same part of the political spectrum that the Cameron government once did. Maybe I'm wrong but can anyone point out any really major differences in policy between Cameron and Starmer?" There are no differences between Starmer's Labour and Cameron's Tories. This is because the Tories of the previous 14 years were as ideologically captured as Starmer’s Labour, due largely to the decades long march through the institutions of globalist Marxism. The Tories of 2010-2024 were never right wing. They just followed Blair’s crazy legacy. The entire UK establishment is left leaning, the universities, the judiciary, corporations, and most powerfully the civil service, and has been for several decades. Blair handing power from parliament to lawyers, civil servants, and NGOs was the act that leads us to today. Those institutions are more powerful than any elected party, and those institutions are ideologically far left. The influence of Marxist globalisation sits behind everything, including all UK governments, and has for at least 3 decades, more likely 5 or 6. The Overton window is only now shifting because people are waking up to how globalist Marxism has crushed them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well, now's certainly the time to salary sacrifice what you can and/or make large mortgage overpayments." But, and this is the big issue, the likely fiscal policies we can expect in the Autumn budget would make it more sense for you not to do that, to keep debt high, spend now and not worry about the future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So someone buys a house in 2010. Sells it later for 50 per cent more. Shod they pay tax on that huge profit?" nope they got lucky they could of also sold it and got 50% less but no one would of made up the difference if that had happend | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." "To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction." And why is that wrong? Why should we be concerned that the top 10% are talented / hard-working / lucky enough to earn more than the other 90%? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths "Sorry to be pedantic... 1% of the top 10% would leave 9.9%. However, it could make a significant difference depending on whether it were the top or bottom 1% of that 10%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The influence of Marxist globalisation sits behind everything... " Genuine question: what is Marxist globalisation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The influence of Marxist globalisation sits behind everything... Genuine question: what is Marxist globalisation?" I've never heard of Marxist globalisation. My understanding of Marxism is that it's against globalisation. One reason being, that it undercuts labour markets. Such as, products made cheaply in China undercut the labour market in the UK. So we benefit from poverty in another country. Hopefully the person who made the comment responds so I can better understand it also. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction. And why is that wrong? Why should we be concerned that the top 10% are talented / hard-working / lucky enough to earn more than the other 90%?" Because it leads both to inequality and inequity to have a society where the top 10% take home roughly one-third of the money. And while the lowest salary in that top 10% is a not especially concerning £75k, let's not forget that there are 165 billionaires massively skewing that data set. It's true that it's unavoidable that some people are more talented, hard-working and lucky than others in ways that make them richer, and that in itself isn't really a problem. The issue is that those in the top brackets don't just earn more money. They have more power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction. And why is that wrong? Why should we be concerned that the top 10% are talented / hard-working / lucky enough to earn more than the other 90%? Because it leads both to inequality and inequity to have a society where the top 10% take home roughly one-third of the money. And while the lowest salary in that top 10% is a not especially concerning £75k, let's not forget that there are 165 billionaires massively skewing that data set. It's true that it's unavoidable that some people are more talented, hard-working and lucky than others in ways that make them richer, and that in itself isn't really a problem. The issue is that those in the top brackets don't just earn more money. They have more power." Most of us don’t really care whether someone else has more money than we do. I can’t say I spend a second of any day thinking about it. And if I did think about it I’d just think “good luck to them”. There is just a small minority of people who are so wracked with bitterness and envy, and so lacking in any agency or will, that they blame all their problems on others who have a bit more than they do. It is as it has always been, for all its virtue signalling, socialism has an ugly authoritarianism and resentment at its core. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction. And why is that wrong? Why should we be concerned that the top 10% are talented / hard-working / lucky enough to earn more than the other 90%? Because it leads both to inequality and inequity to have a society where the top 10% take home roughly one-third of the money. And while the lowest salary in that top 10% is a not especially concerning £75k, let's not forget that there are 165 billionaires massively skewing that data set. It's true that it's unavoidable that some people are more talented, hard-working and lucky than others in ways that make them richer, and that in itself isn't really a problem. The issue is that those in the top brackets don't just earn more money. They have more power. Most of us don’t really care whether someone else has more money than we do. I can’t say I spend a second of any day thinking about it. And if I did think about it I’d just think “good luck to them”. There is just a small minority of people who are so wracked with bitterness and envy, and so lacking in any agency or will, that they blame all their problems on others who have a bit more than they do. It is as it has always been, for all its virtue signalling, socialism has an ugly authoritarianism and resentment at its core." People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. To some, that stat proves that the wealthy are paying their fair share. To others, it highlights that we live in a system where the top 10% are raking in so much as compared to the other 90% that over half of income taxes come from their huge pay packets, even after their accountants have claimed every possible deduction. And why is that wrong? Why should we be concerned that the top 10% are talented / hard-working / lucky enough to earn more than the other 90%? Because it leads both to inequality and inequity to have a society where the top 10% take home roughly one-third of the money. And while the lowest salary in that top 10% is a not especially concerning £75k, let's not forget that there are 165 billionaires massively skewing that data set. It's true that it's unavoidable that some people are more talented, hard-working and lucky than others in ways that make them richer, and that in itself isn't really a problem. The issue is that those in the top brackets don't just earn more money. They have more power. Most of us don’t really care whether someone else has more money than we do. I can’t say I spend a second of any day thinking about it. And if I did think about it I’d just think “good luck to them”. There is just a small minority of people who are so wracked with bitterness and envy, and so lacking in any agency or will, that they blame all their problems on others who have a bit more than they do. It is as it has always been, for all its virtue signalling, socialism has an ugly authoritarianism and resentment at its core." Is it not possible that between "total indifference" and "bitterness and envy" there is a position of legitimate political interest in the effects of wealth inequality on socio-economic harmony and how they might be mitigated? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ......." Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same." C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse." Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid." And most people on here or elsewhere who complain about immigrant sex crimes don't explicitly condone white British sex crimes... But they're still called racists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. And most people on here or elsewhere who complain about immigrant sex crimes don't explicitly condone white British sex crimes... But they're still called racists." That's a very different distinction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid." That's precisely the paradox. People are vocal on the former yet silent on the latter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. That's precisely the paradox. People are vocal on the former yet silent on the latter." Well, that may be because gazillions of public money wasn't pumped into the FA to keep it afloat after it crippled the global economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. That's precisely the paradox. People are vocal on the former yet silent on the latter. Well, that may be because gazillions of public money wasn't pumped into the FA to keep it afloat after it crippled the global economy." Well tbh I'd rather Woking Wanderers went to the wall than my bank. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"nope they got lucky they could of also sold it and got 50% less but no one would of made up the difference if that had happend" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm no accountant but I'm pretty sure you don't pay tax on losses. I mean whoever heard of capital loss tax ? nope they got lucky they could of also sold it and got 50% less but no one would of made up the difference if that had happend" Would you also support refunding the stamp duty paid at purchase, deduct the mortgage interest, take off home improvements, and deduct the tax already paid on the earnings used to pay the mortgage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid." Then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm on a few football forums and I've lost count of the number of times I read something like: We (insert football club name) need a new striker/defender/midfielder. If Carlos Kickaball costs 50 million and he wants 300 grand a week we should pay it. How can "we" win anything without him? In the next breath they are blaming "corporate greed" because the replica shirt costs over 100 quid.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are no differences between Starmer's Labour and Cameron's Tories. This is because the Tories of the previous 14 years were as ideologically captured as Starmer’s Labour, due largely to the decades long march through the institutions of globalist Marxism. The Tories of 2010-2024 were never right wing. They just followed Blair’s crazy legacy. The entire UK establishment is left leaning, the universities, the judiciary, corporations, and most powerfully the civil service, and has been for several decades. Blair handing power from parliament to lawyers, civil servants, and NGOs was the act that leads us to today. Those institutions are more powerful than any elected party, and those institutions are ideologically far left. The influence of Marxist globalisation sits behind everything, including all UK governments, and has for at least 3 decades, more likely 5 or 6. The Overton window is only now shifting because people are waking up to how globalist Marxism has crushed them." Like others I'd like to learn more about "globalist Marxism". Is it your theory that most of the world economy is controlled by people on the far-left? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. Then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm on a few football forums and I've lost count of the number of times I read something like: We (insert football club name) need a new striker/defender/midfielder. If Carlos Kickaball costs 50 million and he wants 300 grand a week we should pay it. How can "we" win anything without him? In the next breath they are blaming "corporate greed" because the replica shirt costs over 100 quid. "Ah, fair enough. I don't follow football so I haven't seen those forums. I would say though, somebody bitching about "corporate greed" because of how much footy merch costs isn't necessarily the same as a socialist with informed concerns about the permissiveness of corporate executive remuneration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well there is one sure thing, When the government gets an AI computer system running every person will have a profile on it from birth to death showing what they earned what they spent an god help any one who spends more that it says they have. It will have Travel, Home type, Cars, Weekly shopping, Holidays, Savings, Most likely be able to take tax from your ac with out you having to be asked. Leaving you having to fight and prove it wrong before any refunds. And dont even try chatting to a human to get it sorted. This is the future." In Germany some of that isn't the future, it's the present. The German taxman can and does take money from your bank account without asking. Not on the odd occasion but routinely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. Then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm on a few football forums and I've lost count of the number of times I read something like: We (insert football club name) need a new striker/defender/midfielder. If Carlos Kickaball costs 50 million and he wants 300 grand a week we should pay it. How can "we" win anything without him? In the next breath they are blaming "corporate greed" because the replica shirt costs over 100 quid.
Ah, fair enough. I don't follow football so I haven't seen those forums.
I would say though, somebody bitching about "corporate greed" because of how much footy merch costs isn't necessarily the same as a socialist with informed concerns about the permissiveness of corporate executive remuneration."Socialist and informed should never appear in the same sentence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. Then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm on a few football forums and I've lost count of the number of times I read something like: We (insert football club name) need a new striker/defender/midfielder. If Carlos Kickaball costs 50 million and he wants 300 grand a week we should pay it. How can "we" win anything without him? In the next breath they are blaming "corporate greed" because the replica shirt costs over 100 quid.
Ah, fair enough. I don't follow football so I haven't seen those forums.
I would say though, somebody bitching about "corporate greed" because of how much footy merch costs isn't necessarily the same as a socialist with informed concerns about the permissiveness of corporate executive remuneration.
Socialist and informed should never appear in the same sentence."Have you ever required the services of an NHS hospital? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ......." I believe most water company executives got a 5% pay rise this last financial year so that their average pay is now £1.1 million a year. They clearly deserve this for their hard work of sheer brilliance. Southern Water awarded its chief executive an 80% pay increase to £1.4 million. Despite Southern Water being banned from paying bonuses for the year. They described it as a "two-year long-term incentive plan" rather than a bonus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... I believe most water company executives got a 5% pay rise this last financial year so that their average pay is now £1.1 million a year. They clearly deserve this for their hard work of sheer brilliance. Southern Water awarded its chief executive an 80% pay increase to £1.4 million. Despite Southern Water being banned from paying bonuses for the year. They described it as a "two-year long-term incentive plan" rather than a bonus. " To be fair, in my area Severn Trent have got us through a 5 month drought with no water restrictions and delivering water of the highest quality. They are investing heavily in sewage treatment and environmental projects. Credit where it's due eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... I believe most water company executives got a 5% pay rise this last financial year so that their average pay is now £1.1 million a year. They clearly deserve this for their hard work of sheer brilliance. Southern Water awarded its chief executive an 80% pay increase to £1.4 million. Despite Southern Water being banned from paying bonuses for the year. They described it as a "two-year long-term incentive plan" rather than a bonus. " Public sector pay rises running at around 5.7% so 5% seems reasonable in comparison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, in my area Severn Trent have got us through a 5 month drought with no water restrictions and delivering water of the highest quality. They are investing heavily in sewage treatment and environmental projects. Credit where it's due eh?" Not everyone is so happy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge6d1dx6mo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9veg1zdjneo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be fair, in my area Severn Trent have got us through a 5 month drought with no water restrictions and delivering water of the highest quality. They are investing heavily in sewage treatment and environmental projects. Credit where it's due eh? Not everyone is so happy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge6d1dx6mo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9veg1zdjneo " Indeed, not everybody is happy. we are nation of glum doomsters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People are selective about the 'rich', perfectly happy with footballers, golfers, F1 drivers, actors, pop stars being rich. But heaven forbid anybody who gets rich through business or commerce even by hard work of sheer brilliance These are the devils who are grinding down the poor and must pay 90% tax. Then the poor can spend more on footballers, golfers ....... Where do you get that from? Are entertainers and sportspeople not also in business and commerce? I've yet to meet anyone who has a problem with a banker taking home seven-figure bonuses but is fine with footballers doing the same. C'mon you must be familiar with the 'big business' trope. Just read these forums. To me people seem happy enriching an EPL player but hate seeing a FTSE100 CEO raking it in (despite the latter having likely done far more for them). It's perverse. Is football not big business? I think you're making a bit of a false assumption here. I've never seen anybody on here or elsewhere complain about a CEO's obscene bonuses while explicitly endorsing the huge money some footballers get paid. Then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm on a few football forums and I've lost count of the number of times I read something like: We (insert football club name) need a new striker/defender/midfielder. If Carlos Kickaball costs 50 million and he wants 300 grand a week we should pay it. How can "we" win anything without him? In the next breath they are blaming "corporate greed" because the replica shirt costs over 100 quid.
Ah, fair enough. I don't follow football so I haven't seen those forums.
I would say though, somebody bitching about "corporate greed" because of how much footy merch costs isn't necessarily the same as a socialist with informed concerns about the permissiveness of corporate executive remuneration.
Socialist and informed should never appear in the same sentence.
Have you ever required the services of an NHS hospital?"Thankfully very little. I think the last time was way back in the 70's when I had a finger stitched up. More recently I have used the Spanish and German health care systems. My last routine operation was in Germany and involved a wait of 10 days. In the UK a close relative of mine had a cancer diagnosis back in April and is still waiting for treatment to start. The socialist ideal of the NHS may have looked good in the 1940's/50's but, like most socialist ideals, it was short term gain and long term pain. In its current form it isn't fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul. I liken the NHS to a fire. The more fuel you throw on, the bigger the fire becomes then it needs more fuel and gets bigger and so on and so on. Just chucking endless amounts of money at it only feeds the flames. Sadly no politician has got the balls to even scratch the sacred cow, or maybe chuck a bucket of water on those flames. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed, not everybody is happy. we are nation of glum doomsters." It's understandable that people faced with a 47% hike in their bills aren't happy. Then they see that the person running that monopoloy is getting an 80% pay rise. So they naturally wonder whether that person really is doing "hard work of sheer brilliance". If they were one wouldn't expect the bills to be going by 47%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Socialist and informed should never appear in the same sentence. Have you ever required the services of an NHS hospital? Thankfully very little. I think the last time was way back in the 70's when I had a finger stitched up. More recently I have used the Spanish and German health care systems. My last routine operation was in Germany and involved a wait of 10 days. In the UK a close relative of mine had a cancer diagnosis back in April and is still waiting for treatment to start. The socialist ideal of the NHS may have looked good in the 1940's/50's but, like most socialist ideals, it was short term gain and long term pain. In its current form it isn't fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul. I liken the NHS to a fire. The more fuel you throw on, the bigger the fire becomes then it needs more fuel and gets bigger and so on and so on. Just chucking endless amounts of money at it only feeds the flames. Sadly no politician has got the balls to even scratch the sacred cow, or maybe chuck a bucket of water on those flames. " Okay, but other than weak analogies about fire and livestock, I'm interested to hear why, in your experience of socialised medicine - which seems broadly good - you don't think the word "informed" would be suitable to describe any of the people or processes you encountered. Were you not satisfied that your doctors and nurses were qualified or competent? Or is it that because the NHS is not well-managed financially, you assume therefore the entire concept of public health care must be based on ignorance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. " Seeing what happens in countries that don't have public healthcare, I always assume that the people who want rid of it are either fabulously wealthy or completely convinced that they and everyone they love will never get sick or injured. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. Seeing what happens in countries that don't have public healthcare, I always assume that the people who want rid of it are either fabulously wealthy or completely convinced that they and everyone they love will never get sick or injured." Which countries are you talking about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. Seeing what happens in countries that don't have public healthcare, I always assume that the people who want rid of it are either fabulously wealthy or completely convinced that they and everyone they love will never get sick or injured. Which countries are you talking about? " Obvious one is the States, innit. Hard data's limited, but the current estimate is 45,000 yanks die every year from lack of insurance or underinsurance. There's that joke, isn't there, that if Walter White had lived in the UK, Breaking Bad would have been a single, 5-minute episode. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. " Two problems with your argument: - Healthcare spending as % of GDP is not the right metric to look at. It mixes both private and public spending. It doesn't tell us what's the spending per capita - More money doesn't always result in better quality, especially when we are talking about government run institutions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. Seeing what happens in countries that don't have public healthcare, I always assume that the people who want rid of it are either fabulously wealthy or completely convinced that they and everyone they love will never get sick or injured. Which countries are you talking about? Obvious one is the States, innit. Hard data's limited, but the current estimate is 45,000 yanks die every year from lack of insurance or underinsurance. There's that joke, isn't there, that if Walter White had lived in the UK, Breaking Bad would have been a single, 5-minute episode." But the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare and does have public health provision. So which countries were you actually talking about? Are you so ideologically wedded to the NHS that you would rather we had terrible healthcare than consider alternative approaches? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Socialist and informed should never appear in the same sentence. Have you ever required the services of an NHS hospital? Thankfully very little. I think the last time was way back in the 70's when I had a finger stitched up. More recently I have used the Spanish and German health care systems. My last routine operation was in Germany and involved a wait of 10 days. In the UK a close relative of mine had a cancer diagnosis back in April and is still waiting for treatment to start. The socialist ideal of the NHS may have looked good in the 1940's/50's but, like most socialist ideals, it was short term gain and long term pain. In its current form it isn't fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul. I liken the NHS to a fire. The more fuel you throw on, the bigger the fire becomes then it needs more fuel and gets bigger and so on and so on. Just chucking endless amounts of money at it only feeds the flames. Sadly no politician has got the balls to even scratch the sacred cow, or maybe chuck a bucket of water on those flames. Okay, but other than weak analogies about fire and livestock, I'm interested to hear why, in your experience of socialised medicine - which seems broadly good - you don't think the word "informed" would be suitable to describe any of the people or processes you encountered. Were you not satisfied that your doctors and nurses were qualified or competent? Or is it that because the NHS is not well-managed financially, you assume therefore the entire concept of public health care must be based on ignorance?" Eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. Seeing what happens in countries that don't have public healthcare, I always assume that the people who want rid of it are either fabulously wealthy or completely convinced that they and everyone they love will never get sick or injured. Which countries are you talking about? Obvious one is the States, innit. Hard data's limited, but the current estimate is 45,000 yanks die every year from lack of insurance or underinsurance. There's that joke, isn't there, that if Walter White had lived in the UK, Breaking Bad would have been a single, 5-minute episode. But the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare and does have public health provision. So which countries were you actually talking about? Are you so ideologically wedded to the NHS that you would rather we had terrible healthcare than consider alternative approaches?" Oh, yeah, just say "the US does have public health provision" like it's the same thing as we have. I'm "ideologically wedded" to the NHS in the sense I believe there is a tremendous public benefit to ensuring the nation as a whole can experience the best possible health without worrying about direct affordability. The so-called alternatives invariably involve selling it out to private interests even more than has already been done by people who are "ideologically wedded" to turning a necessary public service into a corporate boondoggle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Two problems with your argument: - Healthcare spending as % of GDP is not the right metric to look at. It mixes both private and public spending. It doesn't tell us what's the spending per capita - More money doesn't always result in better quality, especially when we are talking about government run institutions" Healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP is only a rough guide but as both GDP and healthcare usage are generally proporitonal to population size it's not a bad measure. I guess it's why people talk about percentage of GDP on defence spending too. I could look into the relative population sizes and absolute GDPs but if you think it's an important counter argument then I'll let you do the math because I think your main objection seems to be the difference between private and government run institutions. This is problematic though because large sections of what we call the NHS are actually private enterprises. For instance IIRC most GP surgeries are private businesses and last time I checked most GPs aren't employed by the government. They are self-employed business people who do contracted work. A lot of this goes back to the deals done in 1948 between private healthcare providers and the government. Establishing the NHS was a messy compromise rather than the pure socialist thing that some people imagine. I think private provision of services is increasing the norm for many things that people think of as the NHS. For instance I recently went for a scan that was paid for by the taxpayer but the provider was a private for-profit company. I'm no expert in this field though so if anyone can come up with hard contemporary data on the private v public ratio that could be interesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Two problems with your argument: - Healthcare spending as % of GDP is not the right metric to look at. It mixes both private and public spending. It doesn't tell us what's the spending per capita - More money doesn't always result in better quality, especially when we are talking about government run institutions Healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP is only a rough guide but as both GDP and healthcare usage are generally proporitonal to population size it's not a bad measure. I guess it's why people talk about percentage of GDP on defence spending too. " But defense spending is mostly done by the government. That's not true with healthcare. I can see why you percentage of GDP is typically used for these purposes. But we are talking specifically about the NHS spending and its inefficiencies. So I don't think private healthcare spending should be taken into account. " I think your main objection seems to be the difference between private and government run institutions. This is problematic though because large sections of what we call the NHS are actually private enterprises. " But the money for any work they do as part of free healthcare comes from the public right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think private provision of services is increasing the norm for many things that people think of as the NHS. For instance I recently went for a scan that was paid for by the taxpayer but the provider was a private for-profit company. I'm no expert in this field though so if anyone can come up with hard contemporary data on the private v public ratio that could be interesting. " I think the main objection people have against private health care as opposed to public funded healthcare is profit. The idea of some billionaire sat on the beach on a private island sipping cocktails all paid for by people seeking medical treatment is an uncomfortable thought. And I agree. I’m all in favour of the principles of the NHS, free healthcare at the point of access. But as a general rule the larger an organisation becomes, the more administration is needed and the more wasteful it becomes. If a private company (or multiples) can do that side of things better and cheaper than public servants, then it should at least be looked into. Still operating the same, free at the point of access, but the government paying an organisation (or most likely multiple organisations, one per area) instead of running it itself. Bringing in competition alone could both improve the service and cut costs at the same time. Schools are competitive to some extent with ofsted ratings and exam stats. Parents all want their kids to go to better schools. And the academy status gives them some autonomy over their budget and spending. Why should healthcare be any different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. " You seem like someone who is good at finding numbers so here is a challenge. What proportion of health spending goes on bureaucracy when comparing Britain with Germany? While all health services need some bureaucracy the NHS seems to be very top heavy. It comes across as more of a job creation scheme than a healthcare provider. As my close relative is now discovering, there are lots of case meetings and discussions but not much in the way of treatment. My experience of German hospitals and GP's shows a very lean level of management with patients care being the priority and getting the job done as quickly as possible. Not excuse after excuse for kicking the can down the road. Which seems to be the case in the NHS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths "0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But defense spending is mostly done by the government. That's not true with healthcare. I can see why you percentage of GDP is typically used for these purposes. But we are talking specifically about the NHS spending and its inefficiencies. So I don't think private healthcare spending should be taken into account." ...and... "But the money for any work they do as part of free healthcare comes from the public right?" I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Is it that healthcare spending isn't mostly done by the government? Because in the next breath you seem to be saying it is. On GPs and other private service providers, the taxpayer is footing the bill but the work is being done by private contractors just like in all kinds of situations where the government pays companies to do work for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But defense spending is mostly done by the government. That's not true with healthcare. I can see why you percentage of GDP is typically used for these purposes. But we are talking specifically about the NHS spending and its inefficiencies. So I don't think private healthcare spending should be taken into account. ...and... But the money for any work they do as part of free healthcare comes from the public right? I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Is it that healthcare spending isn't mostly done by the government? Because in the next breath you seem to be saying it is. On GPs and other private service providers, the taxpayer is footing the bill but the work is being done by private contractors just like in all kinds of situations where the government pays companies to do work for it. " If we are discussing how good our public healthcare system works compared to other countries, we should only look at how much money is spent from the public purse. If it is eventually paid out to some private contractors, it doesn't matter. But we shouldn't take into account the money paid through private healthcare spending by people buying private insurance or paying out of their pockets directly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the main objection people have against private health care as opposed to public funded healthcare is profit. The idea of some billionaire sat on the beach on a private island sipping cocktails all paid for by people seeking medical treatment is an uncomfortable thought. And I agree. I’m all in favour of the principles of the NHS, free healthcare at the point of access. But as a general rule the larger an organisation becomes, the more administration is needed and the more wasteful it becomes. If a private company (or multiples) can do that side of things better and cheaper than public servants, then it should at least be looked into. Still operating the same, free at the point of access, but the government paying an organisation (or most likely multiple organisations, one per area) instead of running it itself. Bringing in competition alone could both improve the service and cut costs at the same time. Schools are competitive to some extent with ofsted ratings and exam stats. Parents all want their kids to go to better schools. And the academy status gives them some autonomy over their budget and spending. Why should healthcare be any different?" I find a lot to agree with in your post. As I mentioned earlier primary healthcare is already largely provided by thousands of small businesses run by self-employed GPs. Many governments have also attempted to break up secondary healthcare into lots of small components in the hope that smaller units will have lower administrative overhead. I think the results have been mixed. In some cases such a statergy can work but in others it can lead to inefficiency due to duplication of effort and communication overheads. Managing scale and complexity is not straightforward and there are few silver bullets in the real world. What we often get is a never ending series of small course changes but this in and of itself creates inefficiency. The main weakness of for-profit service provision is that some money needs to be syphoned off. If this is compensated for by increases in productivity then super. But in situations were all other things are equal then private provision is inherently less efficient. The other problem with the private model is the notion of competition. In most (but not all situations) there isn't any competition. Most people go to their nearest GP or hospital, they don't shop around. It's not as monopolistic as water companies but it's not a true open-market either, so competition theory doesn't apply to the bulk of healthcare provision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You seem like someone who is good at finding numbers so here is a challenge. What proportion of health spending goes on bureaucracy when comparing Britain with Germany?" I can argue with myself any time (and often do). But if you want to engage in meaningful debate based on evidence it involves some effort on your part. "While all health services need some bureaucracy the NHS seems to be very top heavy. It comes across as more of a job creation scheme than a healthcare provider. As my close relative is now discovering, there are lots of case meetings and discussions but not much in the way of treatment. My experience of German hospitals and GP's shows a very lean level of management with patients care being the priority and getting the job done as quickly as possible. Not excuse after excuse for kicking the can down the road. Which seems to be the case in the NHS." That may well be true and like everyone you are entitled to an opinion based on anecdote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany spends 11.8% of their GDP on healthcare The UK spends 10.8% of our GDP on healthcare. Arguing that healthcare in the UK would be more like in Germany if only we spent even less money on it seems odd. You seem like someone who is good at finding numbers so here is a challenge. What proportion of health spending goes on bureaucracy when comparing Britain with Germany? While all health services need some bureaucracy the NHS seems to be very top heavy. It comes across as more of a job creation scheme than a healthcare provider. As my close relative is now discovering, there are lots of case meetings and discussions but not much in the way of treatment. My experience of German hospitals and GP's shows a very lean level of management with patients care being the priority and getting the job done as quickly as possible. Not excuse after excuse for kicking the can down the road. Which seems to be the case in the NHS." I have some experience of the German system. At the primary level, there is an element of self-diagnosis and you book an appointment with a specialist doctor, e.g. ENT, cardio, whatever. It's much more efficient than a GP who has virtually no diagnostic tools, nor can possibly be an expert in every branch of medicine. imo GPs just slow things down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost."The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion. I think that could make a difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are discussing how good our public healthcare system works compared to other countries, we should only look at how much money is spent from the public purse. If it is eventually paid out to some private contractors, it doesn't matter. But we shouldn't take into account the money paid through private healthcare spending by people buying private insurance or paying out of their pockets directly" Sorry, I'm still not following your argument Is your argument that we spend more than Germany? Are you referring to private healthcare in the UK, Germany or both? Germany has universal healthcare but it's a mix of both public and private insurance based finance as far as I understand. So the systems are difficult to compare once we start picking apart what are quite different financial models. If you are referring to private medical insurance in the UK then how do you want to adjust the numbers as removing that would make the UK look to be spending less than it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have some experience of the German system. At the primary level, there is an element of self-diagnosis and you book an appointment with a specialist doctor, e.g. ENT, cardio, whatever. It's much more efficient than a GP who has virtually no diagnostic tools, nor can possibly be an expert in every branch of medicine. imo GPs just slow things down." So if I had a chest pain could I just make an appointment to see a cardiologist at my local hospital? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have some experience of the German system. At the primary level, there is an element of self-diagnosis and you book an appointment with a specialist doctor, e.g. ENT, cardio, whatever. It's much more efficient than a GP who has virtually no diagnostic tools, nor can possibly be an expert in every branch of medicine. imo GPs just slow things down. So if I had a chest pain could I just make an appointment to see a cardiologist at my local hospital? " There is the equivalent of a GP, but patients can make appointments directly with a specialist doctor in a hospital. There are some exceptions like radiology, oncology but I believe a cardio doctor is bookable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference."the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%. this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference.
the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%.
this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed."You’re taking the 1% of 10% in isolation. You need to factor in the top 10% contribute 60% of all income tax, approx £190 billion. That would equate to roughly 1/10th of the top 10% leaving, which means a loss of about £19 billion in revenue, not the 0.1% in isolation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are discussing how good our public healthcare system works compared to other countries, we should only look at how much money is spent from the public purse. If it is eventually paid out to some private contractors, it doesn't matter. But we shouldn't take into account the money paid through private healthcare spending by people buying private insurance or paying out of their pockets directly Sorry, I'm still not following your argument Is your argument that we spend more than Germany? Are you referring to private healthcare in the UK, Germany or both? Germany has universal healthcare but it's a mix of both public and private insurance based finance as far as I understand. So the systems are difficult to compare once we start picking apart what are quite different financial models. If you are referring to private medical insurance in the UK then how do you want to adjust the numbers as removing that would make the UK look to be spending less than it is. " The argument here is about whether we need to increase or decrease spending in public healthcare. The spending amount you shared for UK includes money spent by individuals directly on private healthcare. Same with Germany. Money spent directly on private healthcare without being forced by the government shouldn't count when we are arguing about whether we need to increase or decrease spending on NHS. If we look at the correct statistics, the answer might still be that Germany spends more. I don't know the numbers. Just pointing out that total healthcare spending doesn't help us answer the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's parse "The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." Income tax take (gross of credits) was £268 billion in 2024. 60% of that is £160.8 billion. So the top 10% of taxpayers paid about £160 billion. If "1% of those leave" means 1% of those leave then this £160 billion would be reduced by 1% (assuming even distribution) so the loss would be £1.6 billion. Overall government revenue in 2024 was £1.06 trillion." I meant to say if the 10% became 9%, but the maths is right. The point remains though that a vast proportion of the tax burden is placed on those at the top (rightly so) but there is an inflexible point at which people will start to leave. People may not like them but swathes of investment bankers are relocating to Paris, Milan, Switzerland etc and London is in danger of losing its status as the Premier European financial services sector. People are more mobile these days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's parse "The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." Income tax take (gross of credits) was £268 billion in 2024. 60% of that is £160.8 billion. So the top 10% of taxpayers paid about £160 billion. If "1% of those leave" means 1% of those leave then this £160 billion would be reduced by 1% (assuming even distribution) so the loss would be £1.6 billion. Overall government revenue in 2024 was £1.06 trillion. I meant to say if the 10% became 9%, but the maths is right. The point remains though that a vast proportion of the tax burden is placed on those at the top (rightly so) but there is an inflexible point at which people will start to leave. People may not like them but swathes of investment bankers are relocating to Paris, Milan, Switzerland etc and London is in danger of losing its status as the Premier European financial services sector. People are more mobile these days." it'not going to happen .... it's just the usual telegraph columnists whipping up a froth at the behest of their US/Suadi/China owners. wealthy people are here because of all the other bonuses of UK life. those with assets over 10mil won't be bothered about a piffling amount of extra tax on those assets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference.
the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%.
this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed.
You’re taking the 1% of 10% in isolation. You need to factor in the top 10% contribute 60% of all income tax, approx £190 billion.
That would equate to roughly 1/10th of the top 10% leaving, which means a loss of about £19 billion in revenue, not the 0.1% in isolation. "9% or 5.85 million people are not going to up sticks, that's just tosh. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference.
the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%.
this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed.
You’re taking the 1% of 10% in isolation. You need to factor in the top 10% contribute 60% of all income tax, approx £190 billion.
That would equate to roughly 1/10th of the top 10% leaving, which means a loss of about £19 billion in revenue, not the 0.1% in isolation.
9% or 5.85 million people are not going to up sticks, that's just tosh."33m tax payers. Top 10% contribute 60+%. So 3.3m. 10% of those leave would be a little over 300,000 people, can easily see it happening, these are mobile, smart people who are being wooed by other countries and technology means most can operate anywhere in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it" For an easy explanation, read "Making Money" by Terry Pratchett. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it" Well if I wasn't confused before, that certainly tipped me over the edge  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference.
the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%.
this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed.
You’re taking the 1% of 10% in isolation. You need to factor in the top 10% contribute 60% of all income tax, approx £190 billion.
That would equate to roughly 1/10th of the top 10% leaving, which means a loss of about £19 billion in revenue, not the 0.1% in isolation.
9% or 5.85 million people are not going to up sticks, that's just tosh.
33m tax payers. Top 10% contribute 60+%. So 3.3m. 10% of those leave would be a little over 300,000 people, can easily see it happening, these are mobile, smart people who are being wooed by other countries and technology means most can operate anywhere in the world."you just keep changing the figures, it show's that this is really absurd .... it's so absurd it's just not going to happen. have you set a leaving date for yourself ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have. absolutely none So if the 10% became 9%, work out the maths
0.1% .... still makes no difference. nothing will happen and no sigificant amount of money will be lost.
The actual loss is 0.6% which would be approx £2 billion.
I think that could make a difference.
the other guy whose panicing for no reason gave a figure of 10% and asked if 1% left, do the math. the answer to 1% of 10% is 0.1%.
this is well within the normal ebb and flow of people leaving and arriving in that wealth bracket. it'll make no difference and won't be noticed.
You’re taking the 1% of 10% in isolation. You need to factor in the top 10% contribute 60% of all income tax, approx £190 billion.
That would equate to roughly 1/10th of the top 10% leaving, which means a loss of about £19 billion in revenue, not the 0.1% in isolation.
9% or 5.85 million people are not going to up sticks, that's just tosh.
33m tax payers. Top 10% contribute 60+%. So 3.3m. 10% of those leave would be a little over 300,000 people, can easily see it happening, these are mobile, smart people who are being wooed by other countries and technology means most can operate anywhere in the world.
you just keep changing the figures, it show's that this is really absurd .... it's so absurd it's just not going to happen.
have you set a leaving date for yourself ?"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. As for leaving, no date sent yet, will let you know, might miss Fab and all the fun on here too much | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it Well if I wasn't confused before, that certainly tipped me over the edge "It's ok, we are all obviously very stupid, I'm lost as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. " you still aren't explaining what you mean very well lol. suffice to say that it will never ever happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. you still aren't explaining what you mean very well lol. suffice to say that it will never ever happen. "Spoken to a few people today, they are seeing a huge increase in the numbers looking for advice to move offshore. Anecdotal I know, but it is happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it Well if I wasn't confused before, that certainly tipped me over the edge
It's ok, we are all obviously very stupid, I'm lost as well"That's fair, I don’t mean to confuse or talk down to anyone. I never called anyone stupid. The point I was trying to make is just that since the UK left the gold standard, the government doesn’t ‘run out’ of pounds the way a household runs out of income. Many have based their arguments as this! Tax isn’t there to ‘fund’ spending in the same way it funds a family budget... it’s mainly to control inflation and balance. That’s why debates about tax can sound so warped as it's usually started from the wrong assumption | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. you still aren't explaining what you mean very well lol. suffice to say that it will never ever happen. "any loss of millionaires dwarfed by Blackrock investment in UK housing, build to rent, education, health, nature and green energy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's parse "The top 10% of tax payers already pay over 60% of all income tax. Think they are contributing their fair share. Just consider if 1% of those leave and what impact that would have." Income tax take (gross of credits) was £268 billion in 2024. 60% of that is £160.8 billion. So the top 10% of taxpayers paid about £160 billion. If "1% of those leave" means 1% of those leave then this £160 billion would be reduced by 1% (assuming even distribution) so the loss would be £1.6 billion. Overall government revenue in 2024 was £1.06 trillion. I meant to say if the 10% became 9%, but the maths is right. The point remains though that a vast proportion of the tax burden is placed on those at the top (rightly so) but there is an inflexible point at which people will start to leave. People may not like them but swathes of investment bankers are relocating to Paris, Milan, Switzerland etc and London is in danger of losing its status as the Premier European financial services sector. People are more mobile these days." Some people are being disingenuous, or just can’t do the maths and rely on AI to give them a number. It was obvious you meant a whole 1% drop i.e. the top 10% shrinking to 9%. That’s a tenth of the group disappearing, which using the other figure supplied to prevent further chaos ensuing... £160 billion of tax contributions works out at about £16 billion lost. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it" In fiat systems, markets and confidence matter, if revenues look unsustainable, borrowing costs spike. Sound familiar? This is exactly why the contribution of the top 10% does matter, it underpins credibility with investors and prevents capital flight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it Well if I wasn't confused before, that certainly tipped me over the edge
It's ok, we are all obviously very stupid, I'm lost as well
That's fair, I don’t mean to confuse or talk down to anyone. I never called anyone stupid.
The point I was trying to make is just that since the UK left the gold standard, the government doesn’t ‘run out’ of pounds the way a household runs out of income. Many have based their arguments as this!
Tax isn’t there to ‘fund’ spending in the same way it funds a family budget... it’s mainly to control inflation and balance. That’s why debates about tax can sound so warped as it's usually started from the wrong assumption"I’m more than happy for inflation to rise if it means scrapping all taxation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's quite clear to me most people in this thread don't know what tax is for and have a warped idea of how money works in a fiat economy. There's various reasons for this lack of foresight and mainly flawed arguments. But mostly, I'd guess it is due to people thinking we're still using the gold standard, which I don’t blame anyone for thinking, because it's not exactly explained broadly or typically unless you hunt for it In fiat systems, markets and confidence matter, if revenues look unsustainable, borrowing costs spike. Sound familiar? This is exactly why the contribution of the top 10% does matter, it underpins credibility with investors and prevents capital flight. " I don't disagree with any of that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m more than happy for inflation to rise if it means scrapping all taxation. " Can you describe how does a fiat economy "scrap" taxation? Or more relevant to this, how does the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. you still aren't explaining what you mean very well lol. suffice to say that it will never ever happen.
Spoken to a few people today, they are seeing a huge increase in the numbers looking for advice to move offshore. Anecdotal I know, but it is happening."it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. also need to point out the figure of 330,000 or the whatever % you're talking about go, are these folks all single? do they have a partner and kids? are they happy to leave too? if they are mostly partners with 2.4 kids, that again would be in the millions leaving the uk and realistically it ain't going to happen. what about their assets? they can't take them too. also it's not so easy to just empty your bank and take the lucre overseas. talk is cheap which is why a good proportion of the wealthy love to just talk about leaving but never do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not changing the figures, just explained myself rather badly, was trying to articulate that if 10% became 9% it would have a big impact. you still aren't explaining what you mean very well lol. suffice to say that it will never ever happen.
Spoken to a few people today, they are seeing a huge increase in the numbers looking for advice to move offshore. Anecdotal I know, but it is happening.
it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs.
also need to point out the figure of 330,000 or the whatever % you're talking about go, are these folks all single? do they have a partner and kids? are they happy to leave too? if they are mostly partners with 2.4 kids, that again would be in the millions leaving the uk and realistically it ain't going to happen. what about their assets? they can't take them too. also it's not so easy to just empty your bank and take the lucre overseas.
talk is cheap which is why a good proportion of the wealthy love to just talk about leaving but never do."Talk is cheap? Best tax the fuck out of that then too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to put some perspective on how much impact taxation has on people the Equality Trust did an analysis of ONS data in December and found that the poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23 while the richest 10% of households paid on average just 39% of their income in tax. " You could add to that the high cost of rent on poorer households (median 34.2% income in rent and one in five households over 50%) richest 10% if they have a mortgage is likely insignificant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just to put some perspective on how much impact taxation has on people the Equality Trust did an analysis of ONS data in December and found that the poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23 while the richest 10% of households paid on average just 39% of their income in tax. " So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense. Hey, I’m all in favour of taxing rich people people as I’m not one of them. But if too many of them leave we’re screwed. You wanna play Russian roulette? If so, small tweak and see what happens. Big tweak and we know what happens. Basic income tax goes up to 30% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense." It looks like you are confusing paying X percentage of income on tax with paying X percent income tax. Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income on tax because of things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel duty and after all their expenses they have little disposable income remaining. In comparison someone earning say £10,000 a month pays a higher rate of income tax but things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel Duty don't have as great an impact on them and they have significant income left over that they can put into savings and investments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Talk is cheap? Best tax the fuck out of that then too" you'd be bankrupt in under a week chap | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Talk is cheap? Best tax the fuck out of that then too you'd be bankrupt in under a week chap" Unfortunately not for you, boy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense. It looks like you are confusing paying X percentage of income on tax with paying X percent income tax. Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income on tax because of things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel duty and after all their expenses they have little disposable income remaining. In comparison someone earning say £10,000 a month pays a higher rate of income tax but things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel Duty don't have as great an impact on them and they have significant income left over that they can put into savings and investments. " Whatever happened to fairness? Parity? How about everyone pays the same % of tax? Or is that too fair? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense. It looks like you are confusing paying X percentage of income on tax with paying X percent income tax. Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income on tax because of things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel duty and after all their expenses they have little disposable income remaining. In comparison someone earning say £10,000 a month pays a higher rate of income tax but things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel Duty don't have as great an impact on them and they have significant income left over that they can put into savings and investments. " No I knew what you meant, it was a poor attempt at sarcasm. So are you advocating we try to make as many rich people as possible poor, or we encourage poorer people to waste less of their money on new iPhones, fags, booze and big flat screen TVs? Ok, yes more sarcasm, because the numbers you quoted, which you’ve quoted before, are irrelevant. There’s a very interesting book along the lines of what you’re talking about, you may even have read it. Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. It should be distributed free in pdf form to anyone who is on a low income. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense. It looks like you are confusing paying X percentage of income on tax with paying X percent income tax. Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income on tax because of things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel duty and after all their expenses they have little disposable income remaining. In comparison someone earning say £10,000 a month pays a higher rate of income tax but things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel Duty don't have as great an impact on them and they have significant income left over that they can put into savings and investments. Whatever happened to fairness? Parity? How about everyone pays the same % of tax? Or is that too fair?" Socialist version of fair….. “anyone with more money that me is rich and should have the difference between their wealth and mine taken off them in tax”. And the other gem…. “Anyone who earns more than me should be paying more income tax, a lot more” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So people in the 45% income tax bracket pay 39% and people on benefits pay 48%? Makes perfect sense. It looks like you are confusing paying X percentage of income on tax with paying X percent income tax. Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income on tax because of things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel duty and after all their expenses they have little disposable income remaining. In comparison someone earning say £10,000 a month pays a higher rate of income tax but things like VAT, Council Tax and Fuel Duty don't have as great an impact on them and they have significant income left over that they can put into savings and investments. Whatever happened to fairness? Parity? How about everyone pays the same % of tax? Or is that too fair? Socialist version of fair….. “anyone with more money that me is rich and should have the difference between their wealth and mine taken off them in tax”. And the other gem…. “Anyone who earns more than me should be paying more income tax, a lot more”" And when there's nobody left in that bracket, they're fucked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"VAT is indeed an unfair tax that hits the poorest badly and affects the economy too." Plenty of incentive to get up the ladder then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... There’s a very interesting book along the lines of what you’re talking about, you may even have read it. Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. It should be distributed free in pdf form to anyone who is on a low income. " Once upon a time there was a poor family. The mother was poor, the father was poor, the children were poor. The maid was poor, the butler was poor, the gardener was poor, the chauffer was poor... They were all poor! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... There’s a very interesting book along the lines of what you’re talking about, you may even have read it. Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. It should be distributed free in pdf form to anyone who is on a low income. Once upon a time there was a poor family. The mother was poor, the father was poor, the children were poor. The maid was poor, the butler was poor, the gardener was poor, the chauffer was poor... They were all poor!" And I bet they didn't whine as much the posters on this site | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever happened to fairness? Parity? How about everyone pays the same % of tax? Or is that too fair?" We already have flat taxation in the forms of things like VAT and Fuel Duty. If we made income tax flat too then poor people would pay an even higher proportion of their income in tax compared to rich people than they do now. I know right-wingers feel sorry for the poor rich people but there are various ways that rich people can legally avoid taxation. Just being able to afford to hire a good accountant for a start. One obvious thing not generally available to poor people is the extra £3,000 tax allowance that you get for CGT. Another is being able to max out your tax free pension contributions. When I was rich and worked for a PLC I used to get about half of my income in the form of share options which weren't subject to tax at source. So basically I was being paid in virtual wealth rather than cash terms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs." From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Socialist version of fair….. “anyone with more money that me is rich and should have the difference between their wealth and mine taken off them in tax”. And the other gem…. “Anyone who earns more than me should be paying more income tax, a lot more”" You spend an insane amount of time ranting about things people haven't said and things people haven't done. Have you considered basing your worldview on stuff that actually happens? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Socialist version of fair….. “anyone with more money that me is rich and should have the difference between their wealth and mine taken off them in tax”. And the other gem…. “Anyone who earns more than me should be paying more income tax, a lot more” You spend an insane amount of time ranting about things people haven't said and things people haven't done. Have you considered basing your worldview on stuff that actually happens?" Have you considered stopping telling other people what to do and just worry about yourself? You might be happier. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... There’s a very interesting book along the lines of what you’re talking about, you may even have read it. Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. It should be distributed free in pdf form to anyone who is on a low income. Once upon a time there was a poor family. The mother was poor, the father was poor, the children were poor. The maid was poor, the butler was poor, the gardener was poor, the chauffer was poor... They were all poor! And I bet they didn't whine as much the posters on this site " you mean the ones constantly whining about paying too much tax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany." a bank relocating it's staff abroad is nothing like a top 10%er leaving because they feel agrieved at the amount of personal tax levied on them. that's just nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany. a bank relocating it's staff abroad is nothing like a top 10%er leaving because they feel agrieved at the amount of personal tax levied on them. that's just nonsense." The location of financial services is driven by the wider economic landscape. As our largest service export, if firms and their high earning staff relocate abroad, it accelerates the decline of the top 10% tax base we rely on. Those jobs are gone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany. a bank relocating it's staff abroad is nothing like a top 10%er leaving because they feel agrieved at the amount of personal tax levied on them. that's just nonsense." Firstly, this was a response to the statement about bankers leaving. It happens, it's easy, and we won't necessarily get those roles back. Finance is a very highly mobile profession. Secondly, London losing its position as the world's #2 financial hub (depending on the metric you use) would have an extraordinary impact upon the quality of life for all Brits. 50% of our trade surplus is financial services. Each little event that weakens companies or bankers slowly chips away at this. Brexit, bonus caps, policies, taxes, etc. Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris are actively vying to take our spot. We're still strong, we're unlikely to disintegrate overnight, but we're not invulnerable, by a long shot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany. a bank relocating it's staff abroad is nothing like a top 10%er leaving because they feel agrieved at the amount of personal tax levied on them. that's just nonsense. The location of financial services is driven by the wider economic landscape. As our largest service export, if firms and their high earning staff relocate abroad, it accelerates the decline of the top 10% tax base we rely on. Those jobs are gone." The UK financial sector has shrunk in real terms by 6.5% since 2010, failing to recover from the 2007-2009 financial crisis and experiencing a decline in business sentiment in late 2024. This reduction is part of a broader trend of global growth in competitor financial centers and stagnant growth in real terms for the sector since 2010, despite the government's efforts to boost competitiveness and growth (AI) Separately UK business confidence has shrunk significantly, reaching historic lows in July 2025 according to both the Institute of Directors (IoD) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) And today apparently the ons economic data reliability is in question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" it won't matter. if, as the example you gave, bankers decide to fuck off and get a job in frankfurt, the role they undertook in uk would be filled by someone else. same goes for other jobs. From experience working in a very large Swiss bank... Nope. People leave (to Frankfurt, specifically) and take their jobs with them. In fact, whole teams relocate and departments shift. And if they don't want to move, they get released and other willing people get jobs in Germany. a bank relocating it's staff abroad is nothing like a top 10%er leaving because they feel agrieved at the amount of personal tax levied on them. that's just nonsense. Firstly, this was a response to the statement about bankers leaving. It happens, it's easy, and we won't necessarily get those roles back. Finance is a very highly mobile profession. Secondly, London losing its position as the world's #2 financial hub (depending on the metric you use) would have an extraordinary impact upon the quality of life for all Brits. 50% of our trade surplus is financial services. Each little event that weakens companies or bankers slowly chips away at this. Brexit, bonus caps, policies, taxes, etc. Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris are actively vying to take our spot. We're still strong, we're unlikely to disintegrate overnight, but we're not invulnerable, by a long shot." that actually happened when brexit lost us financial passporting. but it's nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is that those earning above 63,000 are all leaving the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
